Hi, Dave.<br/><br/>Thank you very much for your reply.<br/>A little confusions
from me:<br/>- As you said, the option [2] may be only used as a specification
to restrict the coding specification of PR test cases in the future. If so,
What does the new PR need to record based on master branch ? <br/>- There is no
consensus for considering option [1] now. Does this mean that making a PIP
make no much sense?<br/><br/>Thanks,<br/>Roc
At 2022-04-07 22:16:40, "Dave Fisher" <w...@apache.org> wrote:
>Hi -
>
>> On Apr 7, 2022, at 6:22 AM, Roc Marshal <flin...@126.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Pulsar community,
>>
>>
>> Start voting for [DISCUSS] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ . It
>> will stay open for at least 48 hours.
>> The discussion thread is
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/fo43qg3jtoqy62j2zyro3j88jfhtbnpr .
>
>I reread this thread. Thanks for providing the link.
>
>> I make the two options based on the discussion:
>> [1] Migrate TestNg Assertion to AssertJ Completely
>
>In the thread there is no consensus for considering this option.
>
>> [2] Just Introduce AssertJ assertion API into new test cases.
>
>There may be consensus for this option.
>
>> Please let me know what's your opinion on [1] or [2], or other options
>> from you.
>
>We do not VOTE on just any DISCUSSION. We attempt to find consensus first.
>
>When we do VOTE after a DISCUSSION it is for one of two things. (A) Releases
>and (B) Pulsar Improvement Proposals (PIPs). This suggestion is neither at
>this time.
>
>If you want to go forward with [1] a formal PIP is required. For [2] you
>should start with a PR on the main branch.
>
>Have you had a look here: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki
>
>ATB,
>Dave
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Roc Marshal.
