Here's a library you could add that functionality to: https://github.com/gfredericks/schpec
Gary On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 1:30:27 AM UTC-5, Beau Fabry wrote: > > Right, and I don't think the "this is closed we shouldn't discuss it > anymore" line is great when people are advocating for a piece of > functionality. I understand Alex doesn't want endless threads bikeshedding > basically arbitrary naming choices, but that's not the same as people > making simple points of "I think X would be a good addition because of Y" > with no back and forth. > > Maybe enough people saying "yes that sounds like a good idea because Y" in > this thread will convince someone else that they should create a lib that > mirrors the old functionality, this is the general Clojure group and not > clojure-dev after all. > > Sorry about the meta. > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 3:51:09 PM UTC+10, Sean Corfield wrote: >> >> Well, both Alex and Rich have said the change is deliberate and there are >> no plans to change that decision – and Rich talked about ways you can add >> return value testing manually based on specs (if you want, but he won’t >> help you) – so it seems like a “closed” topic to me? (and Alex has shut >> down a couple of other threads that have continued on past a clear line of >> decision) >> >> >> >> I was sad to see :ret checking go away but I accept Rich’s line of >> thinking on this and I’ll adjust my workflow accordingly. I find Rich’s >> point that instrumentation is now about ensuring functions are _*called*_ >> correctly rather than trying to establish that they _*behave*_ correctly >> oddly compelling, now that I’ve had some time to think about it and play >> with it 😊 >> >> >> >> Sean Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN >> An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org >> >> >> >> *From: *Beau Fabry >> *Sent: *Monday, July 18, 2016 8:50 PM >> *To: *Clojure >> *Subject: *Re: Thoughts on clojure.spec >> >> >> >> I think that was an explanation of why it's not particularly valuable in >> unit tests, but not really an explanation of why it wouldn't be useful in >> lower environments or canary boxes in distributed deployments. This thread >> has also touched on how not everything is gen-testable because of >> complexity, and I'd add that side-effects are another reason for that. We >> also have "you can just use assert on the return value" which is true, but >> seeing as I already have a database of expected return values that I've >> defined then it seems natural to be able to use that database to gain some >> extra testing value rather than define it again. >> >> >> >> I'm not trying to argue for inclusion, if clojure core doesn't want to >> implement the feature then those who see value in it can trivially >> implement it themselves, but I haven't read anything that's made me think >> it wouldn't be useful. >> >> >> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 12:53:49 PM UTC+10, Sean Corfield wrote: >> >> Rich has given a pretty good explanation of why this was removed >> elsewhere. And in this thread, a week ago, he explained again why >> gen-testing :ret and :fn specs was the better approach. >> >> >> >> Sean Corfield -- (970) FOR-SEAN -- (904) 302-SEAN >> An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ >> >> "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." >> -- Margaret Atwood >> >> >> >> On 7/18/16, 7:46 PM, "Oliver George" <clo...@googlegroups.com on behalf >> of oli...@condense.com.au> wrote: >> >> >> >> Here's the commit removing that aspect of instrument-all. Not a big >> change. >> >> >> >> >> https://github.com/clojure/clojure/commit/30dd3d8554ff96f1acda7cbe31470d92df2f565a >> >> >> >> As an aside, I also love the idea of the Clojure community fostering a >> culture of gen testing each chunk of well defined functionality. If it's >> truly achievable the Clojure community could become known as an unstoppable >> force of robust code. >> >> >> >> It would be something of a challenge for many of us... especially those >> wanting this particular feature! >> >> >> >> >> >> On 19 July 2016 at 10:36, Beau Fabry <imf...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Do you find it frustrating that there's no way to turn on >> instrumentation of function outputs for manual testing? >> >> >> >> Yes. I've mentioned this elsewhere but I think being able to turn on >> output checking in lower environments (dev, test, master, staging) is >> getting extra values from specs basically for free. Being able to do it >> seems pragmatic. I'm hoping it won't be too difficult to write an >> `overinstrument-all` that gives me that when I want it. >> >> >> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 5:36:39 PM UTC+10, Maarten Truyens wrote: >> >> I would also truly appreciate instrumentation of function outputs for >> manual outputs. I understand the rationale for not having it as the >> default, but could it perhaps be specified as an option s/instrument? >> (Considering that it was present in the first alphas, I would assume that >> such option should not be far-fetched.) >> >> -- >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Clojure" group. >> To post to this group, send email to clo...@googlegroups.com >> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with >> your first post. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> clojure+u...@googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Clojure" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to clojure+u...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
