Skip to content

specs2 wip #1301

Merged
merged 17 commits into from Aug 27, 2012

5 participants

@nafg
nafg commented Jul 30, 2012

Use specs2 rather than the ancient specs.
Among other things allows us to port to 2.10, since specs is obviously not published for 2.10.
Not finished yet --- currently pushed common, actor, json*, util. Locally have webkit, db, mapper too.
Anyone that wants to work on another subproject comment on this ticket first to prevent duplicate work.

@nafg nafg was assigned Jul 30, 2012
@nafg
nafg commented Jul 31, 2012

github is showing the dates really weirdly btw...

@nafg
nafg commented Jul 31, 2012

Since I'm doing this for the most part subproject by subproject, anyone who wants to review this can begin doing so, but do it by commit rather than by the overall diff, so you can pick up where you left off after future commits.

@fmpwizard
Lift Web Framework member

+1

@fmpwizard
Lift Web Framework member

+1

@fmpwizard
Lift Web Framework member

+1

@fmpwizard
Lift Web Framework member

+1

@nafg
nafg commented Aug 1, 2012

Now up for review!

@fmpwizard

I think it's fine but, could we not use success instead of 1 must_== 1 ?

nafg replied Aug 23, 2012

IIRC no, because it needed a MatchResult, while success is a Result.
What might be better is:

invokeMethod(null, "", "length").getClass must_== classOf[Failure[_]]

(or if specs2 has a built in way to say that).
At the moment I'm pretty swamped though so I'd rather not bother.

@fmpwizard
Lift Web Framework member

done with this commit

@fmpwizard

does the success here mean that if

         actor => actor must_== Empty

is not Empty, the test case will pass anyway?

Lift Web Framework member

I pulled this branch locally and verified that having the success is just to make specs2 happy, if there is a failure in the previous line, we get a failed test.

@fmpwizard
Lift Web Framework member

+1

@fmpwizard
Lift Web Framework member

+1

@fmpwizard
Lift Web Framework member

+1

@fmpwizard
Lift Web Framework member

+1

@fmpwizard
Lift Web Framework member

+1

@fmpwizard
Lift Web Framework member

+1

@fmpwizard
Lift Web Framework member

+1

@fmpwizard
Lift Web Framework member

+1

Lift Web Framework member

The explicit "forExample" statements were added because there was a conflict with Squeryl's implicit conversion for the "in" operator. I'd just make sure that this is run against all supported Scala versions before we commit to it. It's possible that it was only an older version of Scala that was affected, but it was the previous maintainer who ran into the issue and I'm not sure what triggered it.

Lift Web Framework member

Right now master builds for

Seq("2.9.2", "2.9.1-1", "2.9.1", "2.9.0-1", "2.9.0")

but, there is no specs for version 2.9.0-1 so I think for 2.5, we will only be building 2.9.2 , 2.9.1 (and 2.10 if all goes well I imagine) , I tested locally and 2.9.1 and 2.9.2 pass the tests just fine

Lift Web Framework member
@fmpwizard
Lift Web Framework member

Done reviewing all the commits, they all look good, just one thing, could we include a "BoxMatcher" trait, so that users of Lift would not have to do things like boxedVallue.isDefinied must_== true ?

Thanks for all the work with the migration!

@fmpwizard
Lift Web Framework member

and when you rebase this into master, I guess it would be time to also drop 2.9.0-1 from build.sbt (You got a few +1 on the lift committer list and I'm pretty sure I also posted the question on the regular list and got a few votes, but I can't find that post now :(

@dpp dpp merged commit 1980baa into master Aug 27, 2012
@nafg nafg removed their assignment Apr 7, 2014
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.