Makes sense to me - I will pursue removing the PowerMock dependency all
together when all usages are removed.
Ryan
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:47 PM Helena Bales wrote:
> +1 to Galen. I was thinking about the GeodeAwaitility vs. Awaitility rule,
> but that one only needed the rule because we do st
+1 to Galen. I was thinking about the GeodeAwaitility vs. Awaitility rule,
but that one only needed the rule because we do still depend on Awaitility.
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:49 PM Alexander Murmann
wrote:
> +1 to Galen's point. We already follow a PR process and if a committer
> bypasses that
+1 to Galen's point. We already follow a PR process and if a committer
bypasses that to sneak PowerMock back in, it seems like we have much larger
problems.
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 10:35 AM Galen O'Sullivan
wrote:
> Can we just remove PowerMock from our dependencies and skip the rule? I'd
> like
Can we just remove PowerMock from our dependencies and skip the rule? I'd
like to hope we can control our dependencies reasonably well.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 4:45 PM Ryan McMahon wrote:
> +1 to a spotless rule. Unless anyone objects, I’ll look into doing that
> after PowerMock is eliminated.
>
I added one comment to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-6143
which lists every test file using PowerMockRunner. These will be the ones
that take some work to remove PowerMock.
I also added another comment which lists every test file importing
something from PowerMockito but not actually
+1 to a spotless rule. Unless anyone objects, I’ll look into doing that
after PowerMock is eliminated.
Ryan
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 3:50 PM Helena Bales wrote:
> Once we have refactored tests currently using PowerMock, it might be
> prudent to introduce a spotless rule to prohibit the reintrodu
Once we have refactored tests currently using PowerMock, it might be
prudent to introduce a spotless rule to prohibit the reintroduction of
PowerMock.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 3:32 PM Ryan McMahon wrote:
> I am interested in contributing to this effort. I removed PowerMock usage
> from one set of
I am interested in contributing to this effort. I removed PowerMock usage
from one set of tests (GEODE-6052), and at that time I took a quick glance
at other usages. I’ll assign GEODE-6143 to myself and see about removing
the remaining usages.
Ryan
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 3:08 PM Kirk Lund wrot
I filed GEODE-6143: PowerMock should not be used in Geode tests.
We need everyone to stop using PowerMock in new tests. If anyone sees a PR
attempting to use PowerMock please let the contributor know about
GEODE-6143. The alternative is to refactor product code such that
dependencies are passed in
+1 to removing PowerMock. Any situation that needs PowerMock needs
refactoring more.
-Dan
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:27 AM Kirk Lund wrote:
> Anyone have any ideas which unit test is using PowerMock and is injecting a
> mock ClassLoader? This keeps failing in my precheckin runs. I think we need
Anyone have any ideas which unit test is using PowerMock and is injecting a
mock ClassLoader? This keeps failing in my precheckin runs. I think we need
to a) remove all uses of PowerMock and b) forbid its use going forward.
2018-12-04 18:11:36,258 Distributed system shutdown hook ERROR Could not
r
11 matches
Mail list logo
