would like
> the CC
> > >> input on this, since my previous action seems to be debatable. In any
> > >> case,
> > >> this would require a 2.0 of psr/log, but I fear that that change would
> > >> scare a lot of people... Even the 1.1 ruffed s
of psr/log, but I fear that that change would
> >> scare a lot of people... Even the 1.1 ruffed some feathers!
> >>
> >> Il giorno venerdì 7 dicembre 2018 20:23:42 UTC+1, Larry Garfield ha
> >>
> >> scritto:
> >>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 10:19:45 A
>
>
>>> I totally disagree that there is no need for test packages.
>
Question here is which unit test framework ( may be phpunit ) ? What about
others. Or all in one util package.
> The specifications for the interfaces are generally quite strict, but,
> particularly with versions that do not
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:14 PM Hari K T wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>> The package consists of interfaces - so there's nothing really to test,
>> and there's no CI or anything like that set up. (and it wouldn't work if
>> there were, because there's no dependency on PHPUnit although it's
>> extending
Hi all,
> The package consists of interfaces - so there's nothing really to test,
> and there's no CI or anything like that set up. (and it wouldn't work if
> there were, because there's no dependency on PHPUnit although it's
> extending that class.)
>
> This test is for implementations - so
> I'm strongly in favor of tests being in the same package as the thing
being testing
Me too - but that's not what this is.
The package consists of interfaces - so there's nothing really to test, and
there's no CI or anything like that set up. (and it wouldn't work if there
were, because there's
As a user, I have no problem with a provided base test class using PHPUnit.
Using PHP's run-tests.php would be a step backwards in my opinion.
However, I do agree that putting this into the package itself was a
mistake, as was the version bump. It should be a -util package, as others
have
On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 10:19:46 AM UTC-6, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
>
> How is this in any way acceptable?
>
I'm strongly in favor of tests being in the same package as the thing being
testing, and CI runs against that being part of the commit process, so in
THAT one way I'd call it
I fear that that change would
>> scare a lot of people... Even the 1.1 ruffed some feathers!
>>
>> Il giorno venerdì 7 dicembre 2018 20:23:42 UTC+1, Larry Garfield ha
>> scritto:
>>>
>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 10:19:45 AM CST Rasmus Schultz wro
us Schultz wrote:
>> > I noticed the introduction of two PHPUnit-specific test-dependencies
>> into
>> > the psr/log package:
>> >
>> > https://github.com/php-fig/log/tree/1.1.0/Psr/Log/Test
>> >
>> > How is this in any way accepta
of people... Even the 1.1 ruffed some feathers!
Il giorno venerdì 7 dicembre 2018 20:23:42 UTC+1, Larry Garfield ha scritto:
>
> On Friday, December 7, 2018 10:19:45 AM CST Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> > I noticed the introduction of two PHPUnit-specific test-dependencies
> into
> >
On Friday, December 7, 2018 10:19:45 AM CST Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> I noticed the introduction of two PHPUnit-specific test-dependencies into
> the psr/log package:
>
> https://github.com/php-fig/log/tree/1.1.0/Psr/Log/Test
>
> How is this in any way acceptable?
>
> T
I noticed the introduction of two PHPUnit-specific test-dependencies into
the psr/log package:
https://github.com/php-fig/log/tree/1.1.0/Psr/Log/Test
How is this in any way acceptable?
The dependency isn't even declared in the "composer.json" file - but that's
kind of besides
13 matches
Mail list logo
