Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib

[Mayank Jain]

Thanks for sharing.
Will check it out.


On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Steven Degutis  wrote:

> - Renamed project to "Nevermore"
> - Moved repo to https://github.com/evanescence/nevermore
> - Test functions are required to return all assertions as a seq
> - Added "around-each" fixtures
>
> The way fixtures and test-suites work (and work together) makes me think
> of Datomic.
>
> -Steven
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Steven Degutis wrote:
>
>> Also, I came up with a solution for simple around-each fixtures. It would
>> use a declarative style just like (defn ^:test ...), but it would be (defn
>> ^:around-each ...). And its metadata would contain a matcher-fn that
>> matches against a test-fn's metadata.
>>
>> This way you could define a bunch of tests marked ^:db, and have an
>> around-each fixture with :db as its matcher.
>>
>> The de-coupling means you don't need grouping or nesting to have multiple
>> fixtures applied to multiple tests. It also means you can specify both
>> tests and fixtures on a per-feature level.
>>
>> Unfortunately this solution does't carry over to around-all fixtures,
>> because if several tests belong to multiple around-all fixtures, and not
>> the same ones either, they would have to be run multiple times.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Steven Degutis wrote:
>>
>>> The vast majority of my tests look like: do some setup, do some action,
>>> make a half-dozen assertions. Almost always in that order.
>>>
>>> The only reason I can think of that I would need to have assertions in
>>> the middle is if I plan to do more setup and action and assertions
>>> afterwards.
>>>
>>> And in that case, I'm really just writing a second test that should
>>> probably be its own test-fn. And if it relies on the setup from the first
>>> test, I should probably just extract it out into a function with common
>>> setup.
>>>
>>> I think I'm almost sold on this idea now.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:07 AM, John D. Hume >> > wrote:
>>>
 I've never tried it, but I like the idea of test fns returning their
 results.

 On Jul 24, 2013 8:30 AM, "Steven Degutis"  wrote:
 >
 > Also, I've been considering having a non-side-effecty way of
 returning test results. What do people think? It would get rid of the last
 bit of magic in the lib.
 >
 >
 > ;; current style (side-effecty)
 >
 > (defn test-1 []
 >   (let [foo (get-foo)]
 > (expect empty? foo)
 > (expect awesome? foo)))
 >
 > ;; proposed style (more functional)
 >
 > (defn test-1 []
 >   (let [foo (get-foo)]
 > [(expect empty? foo)
 >  (expect awesome? foo)]))
 >

 --
 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups "Clojure" group.
 To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
 your first post.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
 ---
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups "Clojure" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



>>>
>>>
>>
>  --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
> your first post.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Clojure" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>



-- 
Regards,
Mayank.

-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib

[Steven Degutis]

- Renamed project to "Nevermore"
- Moved repo to https://github.com/evanescence/nevermore
- Test functions are required to return all assertions as a seq
- Added "around-each" fixtures

The way fixtures and test-suites work (and work together) makes me think of
Datomic.

-Steven


On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Steven Degutis wrote:

> Also, I came up with a solution for simple around-each fixtures. It would
> use a declarative style just like (defn ^:test ...), but it would be (defn
> ^:around-each ...). And its metadata would contain a matcher-fn that
> matches against a test-fn's metadata.
>
> This way you could define a bunch of tests marked ^:db, and have an
> around-each fixture with :db as its matcher.
>
> The de-coupling means you don't need grouping or nesting to have multiple
> fixtures applied to multiple tests. It also means you can specify both
> tests and fixtures on a per-feature level.
>
> Unfortunately this solution does't carry over to around-all fixtures,
> because if several tests belong to multiple around-all fixtures, and not
> the same ones either, they would have to be run multiple times.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Steven Degutis wrote:
>
>> The vast majority of my tests look like: do some setup, do some action,
>> make a half-dozen assertions. Almost always in that order.
>>
>> The only reason I can think of that I would need to have assertions in
>> the middle is if I plan to do more setup and action and assertions
>> afterwards.
>>
>> And in that case, I'm really just writing a second test that should
>> probably be its own test-fn. And if it relies on the setup from the first
>> test, I should probably just extract it out into a function with common
>> setup.
>>
>> I think I'm almost sold on this idea now.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:07 AM, John D. Hume 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've never tried it, but I like the idea of test fns returning their
>>> results.
>>>
>>> On Jul 24, 2013 8:30 AM, "Steven Degutis"  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Also, I've been considering having a non-side-effecty way of returning
>>> test results. What do people think? It would get rid of the last bit of
>>> magic in the lib.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ;; current style (side-effecty)
>>> >
>>> > (defn test-1 []
>>> >   (let [foo (get-foo)]
>>> > (expect empty? foo)
>>> > (expect awesome? foo)))
>>> >
>>> > ;; proposed style (more functional)
>>> >
>>> > (defn test-1 []
>>> >   (let [foo (get-foo)]
>>> > [(expect empty? foo)
>>> >  (expect awesome? foo)]))
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Clojure" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
>>> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
>>> your first post.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Clojure" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib

[Steven Degutis]

Also, I came up with a solution for simple around-each fixtures. It would
use a declarative style just like (defn ^:test ...), but it would be (defn
^:around-each ...). And its metadata would contain a matcher-fn that
matches against a test-fn's metadata.

This way you could define a bunch of tests marked ^:db, and have an
around-each fixture with :db as its matcher.

The de-coupling means you don't need grouping or nesting to have multiple
fixtures applied to multiple tests. It also means you can specify both
tests and fixtures on a per-feature level.

Unfortunately this solution does't carry over to around-all fixtures,
because if several tests belong to multiple around-all fixtures, and not
the same ones either, they would have to be run multiple times.


On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Steven Degutis wrote:

> The vast majority of my tests look like: do some setup, do some action,
> make a half-dozen assertions. Almost always in that order.
>
> The only reason I can think of that I would need to have assertions in the
> middle is if I plan to do more setup and action and assertions afterwards.
>
> And in that case, I'm really just writing a second test that should
> probably be its own test-fn. And if it relies on the setup from the first
> test, I should probably just extract it out into a function with common
> setup.
>
> I think I'm almost sold on this idea now.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:07 AM, John D. Hume 
> wrote:
>
>> I've never tried it, but I like the idea of test fns returning their
>> results.
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2013 8:30 AM, "Steven Degutis"  wrote:
>> >
>> > Also, I've been considering having a non-side-effecty way of returning
>> test results. What do people think? It would get rid of the last bit of
>> magic in the lib.
>> >
>> >
>> > ;; current style (side-effecty)
>> >
>> > (defn test-1 []
>> >   (let [foo (get-foo)]
>> > (expect empty? foo)
>> > (expect awesome? foo)))
>> >
>> > ;; proposed style (more functional)
>> >
>> > (defn test-1 []
>> >   (let [foo (get-foo)]
>> > [(expect empty? foo)
>> >  (expect awesome? foo)]))
>> >
>>
>> --
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Clojure" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
>> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
>> your first post.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Clojure" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib

[Steven Degutis]

The vast majority of my tests look like: do some setup, do some action,
make a half-dozen assertions. Almost always in that order.

The only reason I can think of that I would need to have assertions in the
middle is if I plan to do more setup and action and assertions afterwards.

And in that case, I'm really just writing a second test that should
probably be its own test-fn. And if it relies on the setup from the first
test, I should probably just extract it out into a function with common
setup.

I think I'm almost sold on this idea now.


On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:07 AM, John D. Hume wrote:

> I've never tried it, but I like the idea of test fns returning their
> results.
>
> On Jul 24, 2013 8:30 AM, "Steven Degutis"  wrote:
> >
> > Also, I've been considering having a non-side-effecty way of returning
> test results. What do people think? It would get rid of the last bit of
> magic in the lib.
> >
> >
> > ;; current style (side-effecty)
> >
> > (defn test-1 []
> >   (let [foo (get-foo)]
> > (expect empty? foo)
> > (expect awesome? foo)))
> >
> > ;; proposed style (more functional)
> >
> > (defn test-1 []
> >   (let [foo (get-foo)]
> > [(expect empty? foo)
> >  (expect awesome? foo)]))
> >
>
> --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
> your first post.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Clojure" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib

[John D. Hume]

I've never tried it, but I like the idea of test fns returning their
results.

On Jul 24, 2013 8:30 AM, "Steven Degutis"  wrote:
>
> Also, I've been considering having a non-side-effecty way of returning
test results. What do people think? It would get rid of the last bit of
magic in the lib.
>
>
> ;; current style (side-effecty)
>
> (defn test-1 []
>   (let [foo (get-foo)]
> (expect empty? foo)
> (expect awesome? foo)))
>
> ;; proposed style (more functional)
>
> (defn test-1 []
>   (let [foo (get-foo)]
> [(expect empty? foo)
>  (expect awesome? foo)]))
>

-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib

[Dave Della Costa]

I think I may have been the one on IRC that provoked you to this
decision Steven, so I'm happy that you've put the project back up.  I
certainly never intended that you not build something to suit your own
purposes, and I absolutely didn't intend to suggest you shouldn't put
software out there for other people to use.

I said explicitly at one point that you may want to consider adding the
features you found missing to the libraries that are already out
there--and I still think this could be a really useful thing to do--but
that was responding to your points about what you felt was missing from
those libs.  I never meant to suggest you were being arrogant by putting
something out there in the world, or that this project was pointless or
a waste of time--that's not something I would ever want to make anyone
feel about anything they'd worked on.  So I sincerely apologize if what
I said came off that way, and I'll work on being more diplomatic in how
I phrase things in the future.

All the best, and I look forward to seeing how the project
develops--don't give up on it, and don't give up on trying new things
and putting them out there in the world for people to see!

Dave

(2013/07/24 22:16), Steven Degutis wrote:
> First, the goal of Verily was not the same as Test2. It wasn't intended
> to unify any existing test libs. It was really just meant to succeed
> clojure.test in spirit. That's all.
> 
> Second, nobody "bullied" me into this decision. Some people asked how
> Verily improved upon the alternatives, and, try as I might, I couldn't
> come up with any good answer. That's how I realized that the project was
> pointless, a waste of time, and was wrought in arrogance.
> 
> But, whether it really is useful to anyone else, that's not my decision
> to make. So I'm putting it back up and letting the community be the
> judge of that. https://github.com/evanescence/verily -- I'll still
> rename it though, soon.
> 
> -Steven
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Jay Fields  > wrote:
> 
> I've never spoken to Steven in anything that wasn't a public email
> to this list, so it wasn't me. I'm not sure who the self-proclaimed
> project guardians are, but I just wanted to make sure no one thought
> I was trying to "protect" https://github.com/jaycfields/expectations
> in anyway.
> 
> I don't actually think there's much value in unifying the
> infrastructure, but I agree with Meikel that no one has the right to
> tell you what you can and cannot work on. My *opinion* is that it's
> a waste of your (Steven's) time, but it costs me nothing for you
> (Steven) to try. If I'm wrong then we all benefit, which is
> obviously a good thing. I mean, we're all here because Rich wanted
> something better, right?
> 
> That said, if all you want is the ability to run the different
> styles of tests side by side, start sending pull requests to align
> the internals of the 3. I can't imagine any of Brian, Micah, and I
> would have a problem with you tweaking internals that might allow
> more people to use our software.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Meikel Brandmeyer (kotarak)
> mailto:m...@kotka.de>> wrote:
> 
> 
> Am Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2013 08:14:15 UTC+2 schrieb Steven Degutis:
> 
> It's been brought to my attention that this project is an
> utter waste of time, brings no real improvement over the
> existing solutions, and was wrought in complete arrogance.
> So I've deleted the project. Sorry for wasting a thread on this.
> 
> 
> Wat? Don't let yourself be pushed by self-proclaimed project
> guardians. If you saw any use of your library, then by-all-means
> you should continue it! Even if there are other libraries
> already, you'll maybe come up with the cool new feature. Who
> knows. The worst that can happen is that you learned yourself a
> lot about doing things. And that is always a win.
> 
> From your message I get the impression that the act of "bringing
> things to your attention" was done in a rather non-diplomatic
> way. Feel free to make things public in such a case (maybe the
> case itself, not the names of the people involved). I don't
> think that this an appropriate behaviour for a community like
> clojure's. Especially since it is not done in public. It is
> absolutely arrogant to judge other people's projects in such a
> way. The other person has no right whatsoever to tell you which
> projects you should pursue and which not.
> 
> Meikel
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
> 
> Note that posts fro

Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib

[Steven Degutis]

Also, I've been considering having a non-side-effecty way of returning test
results. What do people think? It would get rid of the last bit of magic in
the lib.

;; current style (side-effecty)

(defn test-1 []
  (let [foo (get-foo)]
(expect empty? foo)
(expect awesome? foo)))

;; proposed style (more functional)

(defn test-1 []
  (let [foo (get-foo)]
[(expect empty? foo)
 (expect awesome? foo)]))



On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Steven Degutis  wrote:

> First, the goal of Verily was not the same as Test2. It wasn't intended to
> unify any existing test libs. It was really just meant to succeed
> clojure.test in spirit. That's all.
>
> Second, nobody "bullied" me into this decision. Some people asked how
> Verily improved upon the alternatives, and, try as I might, I couldn't come
> up with any good answer. That's how I realized that the project was
> pointless, a waste of time, and was wrought in arrogance.
>
> But, whether it really is useful to anyone else, that's not my decision to
> make. So I'm putting it back up and letting the community be the judge of
> that. https://github.com/evanescence/verily -- I'll still rename it
> though, soon.
>
> -Steven
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Jay Fields  wrote:
>
>> I've never spoken to Steven in anything that wasn't a public email to
>> this list, so it wasn't me. I'm not sure who the self-proclaimed project
>> guardians are, but I just wanted to make sure no one thought I was trying
>> to "protect" https://github.com/jaycfields/expectations in anyway.
>>
>> I don't actually think there's much value in unifying the infrastructure,
>> but I agree with Meikel that no one has the right to tell you what you can
>> and cannot work on. My *opinion* is that it's a waste of your (Steven's)
>> time, but it costs me nothing for you (Steven) to try. If I'm wrong then we
>> all benefit, which is obviously a good thing. I mean, we're all here
>> because Rich wanted something better, right?
>>
>> That said, if all you want is the ability to run the different styles of
>> tests side by side, start sending pull requests to align the internals of
>> the 3. I can't imagine any of Brian, Micah, and I would have a problem with
>> you tweaking internals that might allow more people to use our software.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Meikel Brandmeyer (kotarak) > > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Am Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2013 08:14:15 UTC+2 schrieb Steven Degutis:

 It's been brought to my attention that this project is an utter waste
 of time, brings no real improvement over the existing solutions, and was
 wrought in complete arrogance. So I've deleted the project. Sorry for
 wasting a thread on this.


>>> Wat? Don't let yourself be pushed by self-proclaimed project guardians.
>>> If you saw any use of your library, then by-all-means you should continue
>>> it! Even if there are other libraries already, you'll maybe come up with
>>> the cool new feature. Who knows. The worst that can happen is that you
>>> learned yourself a lot about doing things. And that is always a win.
>>>
>>> From your message I get the impression that the act of "bringing things
>>> to your attention" was done in a rather non-diplomatic way. Feel free to
>>> make things public in such a case (maybe the case itself, not the names of
>>> the people involved). I don't think that this an appropriate behaviour for
>>> a community like clojure's. Especially since it is not done in public. It
>>> is absolutely arrogant to judge other people's projects in such a way. The
>>> other person has no right whatsoever to tell you which projects you should
>>> pursue and which not.
>>>
>>> Meikel
>>>
>>>  --
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Clojure" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
>>> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
>>> your first post.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Clojure" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>  --
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Clojure" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
>> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
>> your first post.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to th

Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib

[Steven Degutis]

First, the goal of Verily was not the same as Test2. It wasn't intended to
unify any existing test libs. It was really just meant to succeed
clojure.test in spirit. That's all.

Second, nobody "bullied" me into this decision. Some people asked how
Verily improved upon the alternatives, and, try as I might, I couldn't come
up with any good answer. That's how I realized that the project was
pointless, a waste of time, and was wrought in arrogance.

But, whether it really is useful to anyone else, that's not my decision to
make. So I'm putting it back up and letting the community be the judge of
that. https://github.com/evanescence/verily -- I'll still rename it though,
soon.

-Steven


On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Jay Fields  wrote:

> I've never spoken to Steven in anything that wasn't a public email to this
> list, so it wasn't me. I'm not sure who the self-proclaimed project
> guardians are, but I just wanted to make sure no one thought I was trying
> to "protect" https://github.com/jaycfields/expectations in anyway.
>
> I don't actually think there's much value in unifying the infrastructure,
> but I agree with Meikel that no one has the right to tell you what you can
> and cannot work on. My *opinion* is that it's a waste of your (Steven's)
> time, but it costs me nothing for you (Steven) to try. If I'm wrong then we
> all benefit, which is obviously a good thing. I mean, we're all here
> because Rich wanted something better, right?
>
> That said, if all you want is the ability to run the different styles of
> tests side by side, start sending pull requests to align the internals of
> the 3. I can't imagine any of Brian, Micah, and I would have a problem with
> you tweaking internals that might allow more people to use our software.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Meikel Brandmeyer (kotarak) 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Am Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2013 08:14:15 UTC+2 schrieb Steven Degutis:
>>>
>>> It's been brought to my attention that this project is an utter waste of
>>> time, brings no real improvement over the existing solutions, and was
>>> wrought in complete arrogance. So I've deleted the project. Sorry for
>>> wasting a thread on this.
>>>
>>>
>> Wat? Don't let yourself be pushed by self-proclaimed project guardians.
>> If you saw any use of your library, then by-all-means you should continue
>> it! Even if there are other libraries already, you'll maybe come up with
>> the cool new feature. Who knows. The worst that can happen is that you
>> learned yourself a lot about doing things. And that is always a win.
>>
>> From your message I get the impression that the act of "bringing things
>> to your attention" was done in a rather non-diplomatic way. Feel free to
>> make things public in such a case (maybe the case itself, not the names of
>> the people involved). I don't think that this an appropriate behaviour for
>> a community like clojure's. Especially since it is not done in public. It
>> is absolutely arrogant to judge other people's projects in such a way. The
>> other person has no right whatsoever to tell you which projects you should
>> pursue and which not.
>>
>> Meikel
>>
>>  --
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Clojure" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
>> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
>> your first post.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Clojure" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>
>  --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
> your first post.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Clojure" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visi

Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib

[Jay Fields]

I've never spoken to Steven in anything that wasn't a public email to this
list, so it wasn't me. I'm not sure who the self-proclaimed project
guardians are, but I just wanted to make sure no one thought I was trying
to "protect" https://github.com/jaycfields/expectations in anyway.

I don't actually think there's much value in unifying the infrastructure,
but I agree with Meikel that no one has the right to tell you what you can
and cannot work on. My *opinion* is that it's a waste of your (Steven's)
time, but it costs me nothing for you (Steven) to try. If I'm wrong then we
all benefit, which is obviously a good thing. I mean, we're all here
because Rich wanted something better, right?

That said, if all you want is the ability to run the different styles of
tests side by side, start sending pull requests to align the internals of
the 3. I can't imagine any of Brian, Micah, and I would have a problem with
you tweaking internals that might allow more people to use our software.


On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Meikel Brandmeyer (kotarak) 
wrote:

>
> Am Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2013 08:14:15 UTC+2 schrieb Steven Degutis:
>>
>> It's been brought to my attention that this project is an utter waste of
>> time, brings no real improvement over the existing solutions, and was
>> wrought in complete arrogance. So I've deleted the project. Sorry for
>> wasting a thread on this.
>>
>>
> Wat? Don't let yourself be pushed by self-proclaimed project guardians. If
> you saw any use of your library, then by-all-means you should continue it!
> Even if there are other libraries already, you'll maybe come up with the
> cool new feature. Who knows. The worst that can happen is that you learned
> yourself a lot about doing things. And that is always a win.
>
> From your message I get the impression that the act of "bringing things to
> your attention" was done in a rather non-diplomatic way. Feel free to make
> things public in such a case (maybe the case itself, not the names of the
> people involved). I don't think that this an appropriate behaviour for a
> community like clojure's. Especially since it is not done in public. It is
> absolutely arrogant to judge other people's projects in such a way. The
> other person has no right whatsoever to tell you which projects you should
> pursue and which not.
>
> Meikel
>
>  --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
> your first post.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Clojure" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib

[Meikel Brandmeyer (kotarak)]

Am Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2013 08:14:15 UTC+2 schrieb Steven Degutis:
>
> It's been brought to my attention that this project is an utter waste of 
> time, brings no real improvement over the existing solutions, and was 
> wrought in complete arrogance. So I've deleted the project. Sorry for 
> wasting a thread on this.
>
>
Wat? Don't let yourself be pushed by self-proclaimed project guardians. If 
you saw any use of your library, then by-all-means you should continue it! 
Even if there are other libraries already, you'll maybe come up with the 
cool new feature. Who knows. The worst that can happen is that you learned 
yourself a lot about doing things. And that is always a win.

>From your message I get the impression that the act of "bringing things to 
your attention" was done in a rather non-diplomatic way. Feel free to make 
things public in such a case (maybe the case itself, not the names of the 
people involved). I don't think that this an appropriate behaviour for a 
community like clojure's. Especially since it is not done in public. It is 
absolutely arrogant to judge other people's projects in such a way. The 
other person has no right whatsoever to tell you which projects you should 
pursue and which not.

Meikel

-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib

[Steven Degutis]

It's been brought to my attention that this project is an utter waste of
time, brings no real improvement over the existing solutions, and was
wrought in complete arrogance. So I've deleted the project. Sorry for
wasting a thread on this.


On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Steven Degutis wrote:

> Whoops. Looks like I didn't check the namespace well enough, there's
> already a lib called "verily". (Sorry Justin.)
>
> Will think up a new name soon.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Steven Degutis wrote:
>
>> https://github.com/evanescence/verily
>>
>> Verily is a new testing lib with a few goals:
>>
>>- Build off existing Clojure concepts (functions, vars, etc)
>>- Be as functional/immutable as possible
>>- Be easy to use from terminal or REPL
>>- Have composable pieces that are easy to swap out
>>- Keep running tests separate from reporting the results
>>
>>
>> Some upcoming features:
>>
>>- Some convenience functions for assertions
>>- Better reports
>>
>> -Steven
>>
>
>

-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [ANN] verily, non-magic testing lib

[Steven Degutis]

Whoops. Looks like I didn't check the namespace well enough, there's
already a lib called "verily". (Sorry Justin.)

Will think up a new name soon.


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Steven Degutis wrote:

> https://github.com/evanescence/verily
>
> Verily is a new testing lib with a few goals:
>
>- Build off existing Clojure concepts (functions, vars, etc)
>- Be as functional/immutable as possible
>- Be easy to use from terminal or REPL
>- Have composable pieces that are easy to swap out
>- Keep running tests separate from reporting the results
>
>
> Some upcoming features:
>
>- Some convenience functions for assertions
>- Better reports
>
> -Steven
>

-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.