On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 7:37 AM Piotr P. Karwasz <piotr.karw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Gary, > > > On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 at 13:15, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I lost track of where we are after our video discussion regarding all the > > scoped classes and 2.24.0. Where are we on those? > > From my part I didn't advance much, since we are working hard on > reviewing and improving the documentation. However, my fingers are > aching from writing too much AsciiDoc, so I'll clean up `log4j-api` > soon. > > > Also, can we get information on what happened with the conference call > > regarding the (IMO bad) idea on conditional testing? I sure hope we're not > > using it. > > We can have a call this Sunday, I just need to check my schedule.
I'll give you all my -1 POV here: In a real build, I have 100% confidence that ANY change I make runs through the existing code coverage. With this proposal, I have 0% confidence because I know that either not everything is tested, or worse, a random subset of tests runs which is unpredictable to a plain-brained human like myself. For me, this defeats the whole point of having a CI build! The CI build MUST test everything all the time. This is especially important for pull requests. I can imagine this user story: "As a developer, I want the ability to shoot myself and my colleagues in the foot, by only running a random subset of tests locally before I push to the repo". This feels like a classic case of unintended consequences waiting to happen. And just like with other tools like SpotBugs, PMD, Checkstyle, and so on, you end up with a configuration file, an exclusion file, but in this case, the false positives don't fail your build erroneously, instead they skip tests and allow regressions to creep in. No thanks. Gary > > Piotr
