-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 466
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RFC - Pester v. 3.x - an maintenance plan #888
Comments
This raises a number of questions in my mind as follows:
|
@SteveL-MSFT, would you like to join the discussion too? |
@alx9r, I can't answer your questions. Those decisions are outside of the Pester team. |
@it-praktyk Pester being shipped with Windows is cool, but I haven't heard about anyone who actually uses the version shipped with Windows, and if they do, we can easily migrate their test base. ( MSFT has it's own fork of Pester that works on PSCore, so the they could migrate only when Pester is compatible with PSCore, which is not gonna happen for Pester 3. ) So I would vote for Pester 3 being marked as obsolete, without maintenance support. I can make a poll on Twitter to ask if people still use 3 and are unwilling to migrate, but I hope there will be 1% of such people with 200 tests. @alx9r Dunno, but maybe @JamesWTruher could shed some light on this?:) |
@it-praktyk yes, please keep me in the loop. We put Pester in Windows to help bootstrap users and ensure they can leverage Pester since it's available, but our expectation is that most users would want to get the latest version from PowerShellGallery. I would be fine if it is declared that Pester 3 is obsolete, but it will take some time to replace it in Windows. |
Thank you all for your comments. I propose to release Pester 3.4.7 and include in it a warning (displayed under importing it) that the module is obsoleted. Update README.md and include information about an obsoleting, a lack of support (?), link to migration. Do you agree? |
I would like to return to a discussion. What do you think about my previous proposal? |
@it-praktyk proposal seems fine to me, no work in immediate future to replace what we have in Windows. What I'd like to do in the future is to have a stub implementation of Pester in Windows, so if it's invoked, it tells the user to install it from PSGallery. I don't think we can just call Install-Module on the user's behalf since 4.x breaks 3.x tests. |
@it-praktyk Your proposal seems fine to me. I haven't been able to think of a compelling reason to do much maintenance on 3.x. Do you have an example we should expect? It seems like it would be a rather extraordinary situation where the cost of moving a project to 4.x is higher than fixing 3.x. |
Tweeted it out so we will see. I doubt there will be many problems. The migration script worked well for us, and we test a lot of weird stuff and edge cases, so I hope it works for others. |
In the next few days, I'll update
|
Unfortunately, I had to revert to Pester 3.4.6 at work. They have an issue about it : But I think it is more likely due to the changes made Pester's NUnit XML format in version 4.x. |
@MathieuBuisson could you provide a sample project so I can try it? I worked with report unit few times so maybe I can get it fixed. Or at least see what the problem is. |
Hi @nohwnd , I created a new repository to reproduce and test the problem. In the directory We can see that when the HTML reports based on test result files generated by Pester 3.4.6 show :
We can see that when the HTML reports based on test result files generated by Pester 4.0.8 show :
Let me know if you have any question about this repro. |
Looks to me like ReportUnit doesn't handle nested TestFixtures properly. In Pester v4, we make use of that structure to allow for any number of nested Describe or Context blocks (plus we log a fixture per script file, and one root fixture for the entire run of Invoke-Pester.) |
The pull request #947 created. |
@it-praktyk will release the version 3 one last time if I figure out how to pack it and release it and then I close this. |
Aaaand I never did, and no-one else ever complained. |
I would like to start a discussion about a future of the Pester 3.x branch.
IMHO - because Pester 3.4.0 is a part of Windows 10 and Windows Server 2016 - we should still maintain it for some time.
Maintain means - for me
How long? I propose clearly communicate deprecation period - at least 12 months.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: