shutdown dispatcher

[yanns]

No description provided.

[rossabaker]

Incorrectly autoclosed when cats-effect-3 branch was merged.

[rossabaker]

Where does Fixture come from? MUnit?

[RaasAhsan]

BTW munit-cats-effect has fixture constructors for Resources:

import cats.effect.std.Dispatcher

  val dispatcher = ResourceFixture(Dispatcher[IO])

  dispatcher.test("resources can be lifted to munit fixtures") { dsp =>
    dsp.unsafeRunAndForget(IO(42))
  }

[yanns]

Where does Fixture come from? MUnit?

Yes this is coming from MUnit

[yanns]

BTW munit-cats-effect has fixture constructors for Resources:

import cats.effect.std.Dispatcher

  val dispatcher = ResourceFixture(Dispatcher[IO])

  dispatcher.test("resources can be lifted to munit fixtures") { dsp =>
    dsp.unsafeRunAndForget(IO(42))
  }

Yes I saw that. Do you think you should prefer that?
It's ok for me. It would mean more tests to adapt.

[rossabaker]

It seems like the munit-cats-effect version requires a lambda per test? The mixin is syntactically lighter, but too many mixins can get disorienting. I haven't written enough MUnit tests to have a strong opinion which is nicer. I defer to @RaasAhsan or @cquiroz.

Either way, this does look like forward progress.

[RaasAhsan]

We've been using ResourceFixture wherever we can so far. If you decide to go the ResourceFixture route, see this typelevel/munit-cats-effect#60 . Should be fixed in the next version whenever we upgrade

[yanns]

Suggestion:

1. we can merge this. I'm interesting to see if this change will help to fix flaky tests like Flaky blaze-client test: Use User-Agent header provided in Request  blaze#640
2. I can work on another version using ResourceFixture in another PR, and we can compare the two approaches

[rossabaker]

👍 I'm not optimistic it will help that test, but I think it is an improvement, and we can follow up with the ResourceFixture as you suggest.

[yanns]

The variant with ResourceFixture(Dispatcher[IO]) to compare: #4171