-1 (non-binding) This can cause too much confusion for new contributor. On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 12:05 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 (binding) as I've already said :) > > -ash > > > On 6 Dec 2019, at 00:55, Tao Feng <fengta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > -1 (binding) > > > > I share the same with most other comments. And I personally prefer to use > > try,except to make it consistent across the code base while use assert in > > unit test . > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:09 PM Felix Uellendall <felue...@pm.me.invalid> > > wrote: > > > >> -1 (binding) > >> > >> I agree. There shouldn’t be any confusion around this if we want to > >> introduce this. The old/current assertion style still looks more > readable > >> to me. > >> > >> Felix > >> > >> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 23:35, Kevin Yang <yrql...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> -1 (binding). > >>> > >>> People in the old thread has spoken for me. Specifically in Python, the > >>> confusion introduced by using asserts IMO can defeat all the benefits > >>> mentioned easily. > >>> > >>> Kevin Y > >>> > >>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:27 AM Tomasz Urbaszek < > >> tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> -1 (non-binding) > >>>> > >>>> T. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 4:16 PM Deng Xiaodong <xd.den...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> -1 (binding). > >>>>> > >>>>> As shared earlier, the benefit it brings may not be enough to break > >> even > >>>>> for me. And it’s not irreplaceable. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> XD > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 5 Dec 2019, at 11:10 PM, Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -1 (binding) it definitely seems to be a source of confusion and > >>>>> comparing > >>>>>> it to the advantages it provides, I would be hesitant on using it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 2:56 PM Jarek Potiuk < > >> jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Here is a quick vote on using asserts in Airflow code. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It is distilled from the discussion > >>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@airflow.apache.org. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Here are the two options: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> *[+1]* Allow using asserts in some specific cases.* > >>>>>>> *[-1]**: Forbid using asserts.* > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The voting will last till Monday 4 pm CET. The committers have > >> binding > >>>>>>> votes, but everyone is encouraged to call advisory - non-binding - > >>>>> votes as > >>>>>>> well. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Consider that my +1 (binding) vote. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * [+1] The case are clearly "strictly meant for developers" > >> assertions > >>>>>>> (None fields mainly) - which are more like type annotations and > >> can be > >>>>>>> stripped away when optimising. If those asserts are stripped out, > >>>>> another > >>>>>>> exception will be thrown out shortly. If we agree to that we will > >> add > >>>>> some > >>>>>>> clear rules for those asserts in CONTRIBUTING.md and make it part > >> of > >>>>> code > >>>>>>> review process to check if assertions are "proper". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ** [-1] Forbidding using asserts is mainly due to ambiguities when > >> to > >>>>>>> use/when to not use asserts. If we agree to that, we will forbid > >> using > >>>>>>> asserts via pre-commits and remove all assertions in our code. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> J. > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Jarek Potiuk > >>>>>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > >>>>>>> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> Tomasz Urbaszek > >>>> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer > >>>> > >>>> M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493> > >>>> E: tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com <tomasz.urbasz...@polidea.com> > >>>> > >>>> Unique Tech > >>>> Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work> > >>>> > >
