You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Finally, the first release candidate for clap 3.0.0 is available. structopt will not be updated for clap 3.0.0 (TeXitoi/structopt#516), so it will not receive any new features, and we were having some issues (at least #114) that should be fixed in clap 3.0.0. Therefore I think we should consider migrating to clap 3.0.0. I suggest the following migration steps:
add snapshot tests for the --help output of all subcommands and for the --version output
prepare a patch that migrates from structopt to clap 3.0.0-rc.1
compare compile time and binary sizes and decide whether we want to go forward with the migration
Thoughts?
(Looking at the benchmarks, we should expect a small binary size increase, but at least improvements are planned.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thanks for bringing up this topic. Indeed, just saw the release today. Can you please clarify what you are referring to by snapshot tests? I assume some golden-output comparison of sorts? Other than that question what you propose sounds like a good plan to me.
Can you please clarify what you are referring to by snapshot tests?
Basically comparing the output to some expected value read from a text file. insta is a useful framework for such tests. Of course this is not meant to be prescriptive, but as a means to assess the changes and to detect unintended behavior.
Finally, the first release candidate for clap 3.0.0 is available. structopt will not be updated for clap 3.0.0 (TeXitoi/structopt#516), so it will not receive any new features, and we were having some issues (at least #114) that should be fixed in clap 3.0.0. Therefore I think we should consider migrating to clap 3.0.0. I suggest the following migration steps:
--help
output of all subcommands and for the--version
outputThoughts?
(Looking at the benchmarks, we should expect a small binary size increase, but at least improvements are planned.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: