These are chat archives for dry-rb/chat
Next-gen ruby libs! » github.com/dry-rb » website: https://dry-rb.org » forum: https://discourse.dry-rb.org
@timriley @AMHOL Do you think it's a wise choice to move all the tests that I'm writing for
dry-v? I can work on this huge PR, if you'll accept it. The current
dry-v set of tests doesn't give you visibility on the effects of the production code changes. Each time I do
bundle update I get the fixes that you merged (Thank you! :smile_cat: ), but also new failures ( :crying_cat_face: ).
These new failures deserve other GH tickets, by creating a slow feedback cycle: it will take days to notice the problem and a week to get it fixed. With the whole set of tests that I wrote, feedback is immediate and no broken code will be pushed. WDYT? :green_heart:
@jodosha I think these makes sense as a high-level series of integration tests, yeah. Even though some the logic underpinning dry-v is spread around dry-logic and dry-types too, it feels like it’d be helpful to have something comprehensive to test how the 3 gems work toegether.
So I’d be in favour of something like this. Since Solnic is responding to GH issues, perhaps it’d be good to post one there just to see his opinion? To me it feels like a good idea to run it past him since he’s primary maintainer. A small delay is probably worth it for the consensus :)
@timriley Thank you. The whole test suite for
hanami-v has the following stats:
Finished in 3.764721s, 409.5921 runs/s, 751.4502 assertions/s. 1542 runs, 2829 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 81 skips
It shouldn't add too much burden to