These are chat archives for spockframework/spock

1st
Jun 2016
Søren Berg Glasius
@sbglasius
Jun 01 2016 18:31
Hep
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 18:32
hey
Søren Berg Glasius
@sbglasius
Jun 01 2016 18:32
So how do we go about activating these people
Are there any PR's that need to be read
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 18:33
I think anyone with a GitHub account should now be able to get in here
Søren Berg Glasius
@sbglasius
Jun 01 2016 18:33
Yes
I'll add a badge on the README.md
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 18:33
not used Gitter before so I'm just trying to find my way around
ok
Søren Berg Glasius
@sbglasius
Jun 01 2016 18:35
me neither
THe badge is added
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 18:35
:thumbsup:
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 18:35
:+1:
Iván López
@ilopmar
Jun 01 2016 18:35
Hi
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 18:36
Hi
I'm looking at #590
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 18:37
The Spring 2.5/3 PR that I was talking about a few minutes ago: spockframework/spock#575
and of course spockframework/spock#590 :)
automatic releasing
great Rob!
Magnus Palmér
@magnuspalmer
Jun 01 2016 18:38
Ok, guess I am a boring enterprise guy so my idea is to add a issue template for filing issues since I noticed a lot of the issues have no information about versions and environments making it hard to reproduce an issue
Hi btw
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 18:38
+1
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 18:38
I think #586 looks like a good candidate
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 18:38
what about #557?
is it valid one?
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 18:39
some of the larger ones are more problematic
or have long unanswered questions
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 18:39
I will try to take a loot at: spockframework/spock#108
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 18:39
@musketyr let me take a look
#557 is dependent on 2 other PRs
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 18:40
This one also seems to be small: spockframework/spock#550
Søren Berg Glasius
@sbglasius
Jun 01 2016 18:40
So #557 looks interesting, but does not merge in its current stage
I will look at making #550 merge-able
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 18:44
I think #557 is a great idea — there have been a couple of proposals of how to deal with that and of all of them I like that the best. But we need to look over #549 first
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 18:45
#549? Hasn't it been already merged?
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 18:45
it shows so
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 18:46
yes, it has
I was confused by the comment in #557 referencing #50, #49 and #549
so… #50 and #557 are 2 alternative solutions to the same thing
of which, I personally prefer #557
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 18:50
Guys, if someone is bored with reviewing PRs you could also look through the issues and find some which should be easy to fix
or maybe better - obsolete :)
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 18:51
I think #108 is a good idea — are we sure it's backwards compatible?
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 18:51
I can see the advantage of #557. block level is much more convenient
than annotating whole class/method in #50
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 18:52
right, I think it's just clearer what's going on
and allows you to mix the fail fast style with the evaluate all style
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 18:52
yeah. I’ll take a look on merging #557 with the lastest
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 18:53
how to fetch PR from GH
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 18:53
@musketyr sounds great
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 18:53
in addition this project has quite useful aliases, like publish (for new branches) or publishtag(for new tags)
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 18:53
@szpak also it might be helpful to label the pull request with test-needed and obsolote labels
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 18:54
@szpak by the merge button it has a command line instructions which allows you to pull the PR down locally
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 18:54
git fetchpr 456 is easier IMHO :)
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 18:54
but they are shown only for commiters
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 18:55
@szpak is that hub or some other extension?
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 18:56
@musketyr Good idea. Could you put links to those PRs here. Rob or Soren would be able to add those tags
@robfletcher it's not hub. It is just a set of aliases, mostly not related to GH, but to Git in general
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 18:57
I just wonder how can I possibly prepare that pull request for merge
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 18:58
it probably just needs to be rebased — let me try
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 18:58
ok
I think #8 is very obsolete as the original repo no longer exists
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 19:00
but I still see a diff :)
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 19:01
but it won’t be very nice to kill a pull request from hackergarten during a hackergarten
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 19:01
:)
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 19:01
that puzzles me as well
I guess it’s persisted as that /#/pull/#/ branch
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 19:02
I closed it
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 19:03
to make it clear, I’m waiting on @robfletcher before doing anything on #557
Søren Berg Glasius
@sbglasius
Jun 01 2016 19:04
I am +1 on #557
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 19:07
so #2 does look abandoned as well. no response on comments, it’s mergable but against groovy-1.7
I don’t think anyone would ever deal with that branch anymore
what branches are currently mainained?
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 19:12
@musketyr what do you need from me?
I'm just trying to rebase it off master
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 19:13

it probably just needs to be rebased — let me try

waiting for a result of rebase :-)

Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 19:13
ok, good
just having IntelliJ freeze up on me
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 19:15
@sbglasius so in another words, which groovy version are still supported :-) I can see 1.0 was released for Groovy 2.0, 2.3 and 2.4
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 19:15
yes < 2.0 is not supported any longer
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 19:16
btw, @robfletcher after that it would be good if you try to finish looking at #590 today. There is some manual work to be done - if you guys decide to merge it - and it would be good to have you and Soren available online/onsite (in case of problems :) )
Jarl Friis
@jarl-dk
Jun 01 2016 19:19
@szpak : spockframework/spock#593
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 19:20
actually another got my attention - #18 - showing the attachments
but I don’t follow it as I don’t know the insights
this could be possibly used to link the specs to geb results, wouldn’t it?
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 19:22
It haven't used those reports, but if you are able to verify that it works correctly it would look good for me.
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 19:24
these are not the spock reports you get when running Gradle :-( ?
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 19:24
ok gimme a minute I'm working on that merge
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 19:25
@musketyr You can be right. So, it would be easy to test it :)
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 19:25
argh, I see what's going on — he based #557 on #549 but since #549 was merged already merging #557 is trying to bring in the same changes again
with some things rewritten as Yoda conditions
Søren Berg Glasius
@sbglasius
Jun 01 2016 19:33
@robfletcher any objection to merging #592 - it's a documentation change only
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 19:33
ok, I’ll try what can I do with #18 - or at least see where/how it is used
Jarl Friis
@jarl-dk
Jun 01 2016 19:34
Any committers: spockframework/spock#593 ?
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 19:36
yeah, let's get that in
soon as the builds complete I'll merge it
Jarl Friis
@jarl-dk
Jun 01 2016 19:40
@robfletcher : Do you need/want help with resolving the merge issue with #557? I can take a look at it. Making a fresh PR...
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 19:40
sure, that would be great. I'm trying to dig into it but also at work so there's a lot of distractions
Jarl Friis
@jarl-dk
Jun 01 2016 19:41
OK. I'll see if I can do some git ninja stuff...
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 19:42
thanks
2 files in conflict but the changes on both sides are quite dense
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 19:45
does anyone knows where is org.spockframework.report.HtmlReportGenerator used?
I can see only reference in org.spockframework.report.HtmlReportGeneratorSpec
Jarl Friis
@jarl-dk
Jun 01 2016 19:48
@robfletcher : Here you go: spockframework/spock#595
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 19:49
Thanks. I think I was maybe just building the project incorrectly
is anyone building with Java 8? Because I'm getting some failures even on master
Magnus Palmér
@magnuspalmer
Jun 01 2016 19:50
This is a draft for an issue template, created a temp repository so that you can try it out - https://github.com/magnuspalmer/spock-gr8conf-guidelines/issues/new
As a reference, this is the one used by Mockito as mentioned to me by @szpak https://github.com/mockito/mockito/blob/master/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE.md
Jarl Friis
@jarl-dk
Jun 01 2016 19:51
Committers: Take a look at #594, seems reasonable to me.
Søren Berg Glasius
@sbglasius
Jun 01 2016 19:52
:+1:
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 19:54
@magnuspalmer :+1:
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 19:55
:thumbsup:
Jarl Friis
@jarl-dk
Jun 01 2016 19:56
@robfletcher : I am building with JDK 8, works for variant 2.3 and 2.4.
I suggest we remove these lines from .travis.yml:
    # Reduce Travis workload (currently 5 concurrent builds are allowed)
    # See travisCiBuild task for mandatory combinations
    - jdk: oraclejdk8
      env: VARIANT=2.3
    - jdk: openjdk7
      env: VARIANT=2.0
    - jdk: openjdk7
      env: VARIANT=2.4
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 19:57
hmm, wonder what I'm doing wrong
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 19:57
@robfletcher variant 2.0 does not work with Java 8
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 19:57
yeah, I'm supplying VARIANT=2.4
Jarl Friis
@jarl-dk
Jun 01 2016 19:58
@robfletcher it should be -Dvariant=2.4
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 19:58
yeah, that's what I meant
Jarl Friis
@jarl-dk
Jun 01 2016 19:58
OK, sorry.
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 19:58
What error do you have?
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 19:59
3 test failures from VerifyAllSpecification
I think I may just need to clean
because that spec is from the PR
Jarl Friis
@jarl-dk
Jun 01 2016 20:00
Sorry. #594 has build errors...
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 20:01
java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError: org/h2/Driver : Unsupported major.minor version 51.0
h2 probably started to require Java 7
could you try to downgrade h2 version a little bit
Jarl Friis
@jarl-dk
Jun 01 2016 20:02
Yeah it's a new major version on H2.
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 20:02
anyway why do we need h2 in Spock? :)
(ok, maybe for Spring)
Vladimir Orany
@musketyr
Jun 01 2016 20:02
giving up, #18 looks good to me and the file is intacted in the master so it should be easily able to merge but I don’t know how to verify if it’s working properly
Jarl Friis
@jarl-dk
Jun 01 2016 20:03
@robfletcher : What type of failures on #595 ? Same as on your master?
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 20:06
yeah, it's good now. I had cruft from the unmerged PR in the build directory
#595 is merged
I think #18 looks good, yeah
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 20:12
so #594 just fails on jdk 6?
Thanks for all the help everyone. I will put together some release notes & try to get a 1.1 out in the next few days
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 20:16
Rather yes. But h2 can be excluded from the update
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 20:16
is that all it is?
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 20:17
the previous h2 version was compatible with Java 6
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 20:17
ok, I'll make that change
Jarl Friis
@jarl-dk
Jun 01 2016 20:22
Anyone: #592 ?
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 20:24
https://github.com/spockframework/spock/pull/108/files seems to work and the code is only used if there is static or default method, so it should be rather safe to merge it.
Jarl Friis
@jarl-dk
Jun 01 2016 20:26
#592 is pure documentation
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 20:26
I merged it, thanks
yeah I looked at #108 yesterday and thought it made sense, just would be nice to have some tests that only ran on JDK 8
but I can see why that's awkward
oh, wait he added some
I must have been looking at an outdated version
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 20:32
If the support for Java 6 was removed that PR would be much shorter
But I see a discussion about that: spockframework/spock#530
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 20:33
yeah, Java 6 is a sad reality
although that PR would still need to support Java 7 so would it really be much different?
it's interesting there's no constant Modifiers.DEFAULT even in Java 8 so the way he's detecting it is the only way to do it I think
@sbglasius shall I stop merging stuff so you can get #599 stable?
Søren Berg Glasius
@sbglasius
Jun 01 2016 20:38
Right now I'm good
but thanks.
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 20:39
Guys, what do you think about using @Beta tag for all new features - just to be able to get feedback from people using them in production?
Like spockframework/spock#600
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 20:40
agreed & merged
I'm not 100% happy with the name verifyAll myself
I was thinking just all would be neat
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 20:44
@jarl-dk Could you update documentation in spockframework/spock#598 ?
Søren Berg Glasius
@sbglasius
Jun 01 2016 20:44
I messed up #599, so I'm trying one more time :D
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 20:45
@sbglasius I'll stop merging to give you a stable base to rebase from!
Søren Berg Glasius
@sbglasius
Jun 01 2016 20:45
Andres Almiray asks for #586 - is it something to look into at this point?
and for the next version?
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 20:49
I was going to bring that one up earlier then got sidetracked
I was involved in a discussion about that a week or so back
yes, I think it's a good candidate
I confess I'm in the dark as to whether that's the right way to do it, though
Jarl Friis
@jarl-dk
Jun 01 2016 20:51
Updated #598 with doc.
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 20:52
Great!
Søren Berg Glasius
@sbglasius
Jun 01 2016 20:52
#599 was replaced by #601 and should be good to pull after a short review
We have to close down here, as the venue is closing.
Jarl Friis
@jarl-dk
Jun 01 2016 20:52
@robfletcher: #598
Marcin Zajączkowski
@szpak
Jun 01 2016 20:53
Almost 10 PRs were merged. Some other were closed. Thanks guys for the meeting!
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 20:54
yeah thanks everyone. This is great progress
I'll start working on release notes
Søren Berg Glasius
@sbglasius
Jun 01 2016 20:54
We have rebooted the Spock project :)
:clap:
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 20:54
let's hope so
Jarl Friis
@jarl-dk
Jun 01 2016 20:55
Thanks. Over and out.
Rob Fletcher
@robfletcher
Jun 01 2016 20:55
Ok, I'll merge #598 and #601 once the builds go green
go have a beer for me!