🚧 Rename ‘Assertions’ to ‘Expectations’ #748

jGleitz · 2020-12-23T23:14:38Z

This is work in progress. This draft PR exists only for visibility of the progress and to detect conflicts early.

I confirm that I have read the Contributor Agreements v1.0, agree to be bound on them and confirm that my contribution is compliant.

robstoll · 2020-12-24T10:06:19Z

@jGleitz you need to change build.gradle of bc-test. Currently, we always create bc and bbc tests. It makes sense to split that and only keep bc for all old versions. We will introduce bbc again for 0.16.0. I am going to create a pull request deleting all deprecated stuff today probably in the late afternoon or evening where I will do this as well. So, you can also wait until I have merged my changes.

robstoll · 2020-12-24T10:09:05Z

...-en_GB-common/src/main/kotlin/ch/tutteli/atrium/api/fluent/en_GB/charSequenceExpectations.kt

@@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ fun <T : CharSequence> Expect<T>.endsWith(expected: CharSequence): Expect<T> =
 *
 * @since 0.9.0
 *
- * @sample ch.tutteli.atrium.api.fluent.en_GB.samples.CharSequenceAssertionsSpec.endsWithChar
+ * @sample ch.tutteli.atrium.api.fluent.en_GB.samples.CharSequenceExpectationsSpec.endsWithChar


Looks like those were named wrong in the first place. Can you rename them to ...Samples instead of ...Spec (perfectly fine if you do this in a subsequent PR)

Done in this PR.

robstoll · 2020-12-25T00:15:47Z

@jGleitz I have merged my changes, so a rebase, accepting my changes in case of a conflict and re-do the renaming for those files should do it I guess

robstoll · 2020-12-27T10:58:04Z

I realised that the bc test is actually a half bbc test. I am pretty sure it will fail due to the renamings. You can ignore that. I am going to fix it

…ogic types

jGleitz · 2021-01-06T18:45:26Z

@robstoll This PR will break source compatibility all over the place. Might it make sense to remove all of the @Deprecated stuff that is not in the API first? A lot of it is announced to be removed with 1.0.0, however, if we rename everything anyway, is it worth keeping the baggage?

jGleitz · 2021-01-06T18:48:55Z

I am asking because I don’t assume that we want to duplicate every type that has ‘Assertion’ in it and mark it as deprecated. Since non-api artefacts are not considered stable, that would not be worth the effort, would it?

Until now, I have been careful not to rename anything that is deprecated. However, that makes the work more tedious. And it also feels silly: breaking compatibility with production code while trying to maintain it for deprecated types.

robstoll · 2021-01-06T19:34:36Z

A lot of it is announced to be removed with 1.0.0, however, if we rename everything anyway, is it worth keeping the baggage?

I don't like to remove stuff prior to an announcement in terms of a @Deprecated annotation. Since you are referring to such cases, it is probably OK to remove but I would prefer if we could discuss it first. I have removed quite a lot of stuff already (I assume you already rebased), so I am not sure of which things you talk about. Translations?

robstoll · 2021-01-06T19:38:59Z

If possible, it would be good if you could remove the stuff from this PR which you think could be controversial and only keep stuff which isn't (rename of samples, specs, files names). And then we can already merge this PR.

jGleitz · 2021-01-06T19:44:26Z

I think this PR is uncontroversial in its current form. So I won’t push any further changes (docs and core are still missing), but only fix the bc tests. Then we can merge and I’ll open another PR for the next round.

jGleitz · 2021-01-06T19:45:06Z

so I am not sure of which things you talk about.

ExpectationGroups, mainly. I’ll post details in the next PR.

robstoll · 2021-01-06T19:57:32Z

but only fix the bc tests

Please don't fix them (at least not if it is due to a binary backward compatibility issue), it would be a waste of time, I am currently re-working them.

ExpectationGroups, mainly. I’ll post details in the next PR.

Assertion and AssertionGroup should keep its name IMO. You write an expectation but an Assertion is created behind the scene, checked against your expectation, a report is created if it does not hold etc. I kind of like this distinction. I always disliked that I called the API functions "assertion function" which sounds like they create Assertions where in reality they did much more.

jGleitz · 2021-01-06T20:10:25Z

I see what you are aiming at with the assertion / expectation distinction, although I don’t know whether it makes sense to my head. Currently, I would not yet know where exactly to draw the line. But since that would be part of another PR anyway, that’s fine, I guess.

jGleitz · 2021-01-06T20:10:59Z

Please don't fix them (at least not if it is due to a binary backward compatibility issue)

The build fails because of the Source Backward Compatibility test. Should I attempt to fix it (I have not yet had a look at it) or not?

robstoll · 2021-01-06T21:58:12Z

The build fails because of the Source Backward Compatibility test. Should I attempt to fix it (I have not yet had a look at it) or not?

I would wait until I have the new bc-test setup, rebase and see if they still fail

robstoll · 2021-01-06T22:04:33Z

...fluent-en_GB/src/main/scala/ch/tutteli/atrium/scala2/api/fluent/en_GB/BaseExpectations.scala

@@ -1,12 +0,0 @@
-package ch.tutteli.atrium.scala2.api.fluent.en_GB


Should not have been deleted I guess

robstoll · 2021-01-06T22:04:39Z

...la/ch/tutteli/atrium/scala2/api/fluent/en_GB/IterableLikeElementComparableExpectations.scala

-import ch.tutteli.atrium.creating.Expect
-import ch.tutteli.atrium.logic.{IterableLikeKt, LogicKt}
-
-class IterableLikeElementComparableExpectations[Repr, E <: Comparable[E]](override val expect: Expect[Repr])(


same, don't delete

robstoll · 2021-01-06T22:17:13Z

logic/atrium-logic-common/src/main/kotlin/ch/tutteli/atrium/logic/AnyExpectations.kt

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ import kotlin.reflect.KClass
 /**
 * Collection of assertion functions and builders which are applicable to any type (sometimes `Any?` sometimes `Any`).
 */
-interface AnyAssertions {
+interface AnyExpectations {


I think we should not do this renaming at the moment. If we don't rename Assertion (and I suggest we don't for the moment) then it makes more sense to call this AnyAssertions as all functions create an Assertion or a SubjectChangerBuilder.ExecutionStep (and in other files also FeatureExtractorBuilder.ExecutionStep)

Could you please revert the changes in the path /logic for now

I am sure now that I will keep the name Assertion on the logic level. The main type on the logic level is also AssertionContainer instead of Expect.

robstoll · 2021-01-08T23:34:01Z

@jGleitz you can rebase, the new bc-tests are established

robstoll · 2021-01-10T21:21:08Z

As this PR will run into more and more conflicts, I am going to merge it into a different branch than master and cherry-pick the commits which I can use and then merge into master

robstoll · 2021-01-10T21:33:28Z

I am came to realise that renaming the files in APIs is of no value for the moment. Since we are going to duplicate everything I prefer to keep the old files and introduce new files with the correct naming instead (same same for samples). This way we have a clear separation most likely without the need for bbc breaks - ah no... we will most likely have bbc breaks anyway since we have some inline methods in the API.

jGleitz · 2021-01-10T21:47:05Z

I intentionally coordinated with you before working on this PR, so the work be for nought 😑

robstoll · 2021-01-10T21:50:59Z

I am very sorry about that, something I only realised when I wanted to merge your PR. I would have run into the same if I did the renaming... in this sense, thanks for doing it. I can still use some of the renaming and adjustments though:
#781

jGleitz · 2021-01-10T21:58:46Z

It’s alright, I know these things happen. Sometimes you need to see it before having a definite opinion. I’d just like to have the little time I can spare for Atrium to have more impact 😄

jGleitz requested a review from robstoll as a code owner December 23, 2020 23:14

jGleitz marked this pull request as draft December 23, 2020 23:14

jGleitz force-pushed the rename-to-expectation branch from 59e60bf to 4dd9b21 Compare December 23, 2020 23:16

robstoll reviewed Dec 24, 2020

View reviewed changes

jGleitz added 9 commits January 6, 2021 19:19

refactor: rename the API files from *Assertions.kt to *Expectations.kt

06dc848

refactor: rename the logic types from *Assertions to *Expectations

aee1bdb

refactor: adapt the logic files to new *Expectations naming

8fdee06

build: adapt the logic generation to new *Expectations names of the l…

f3c91a6

…ogic types

chore: regenerate logic files for new *Expectations types

9817492

refactor: rename specs from *Assertions* to *Expectations*

12af592

refactor: adapt specs to *Expectations* naming

7470c90

refactor: rename samples to *Expectations*

b8e9b47

refactor: adapt sample references to *Expectations* naming

f85a8b3

jGleitz force-pushed the rename-to-expectation branch from 4dd9b21 to f85a8b3 Compare January 6, 2021 18:45

robstoll requested changes Jan 6, 2021

View reviewed changes

robstoll changed the base branch from master to rename-assertion-to-expectation January 10, 2021 21:20

robstoll force-pushed the rename-assertion-to-expectation branch from 623158a to 3ba54bf Compare January 10, 2021 21:22

robstoll marked this pull request as ready for review January 10, 2021 21:22

robstoll force-pushed the rename-assertion-to-expectation branch from 3ba54bf to 79460ae Compare January 10, 2021 21:24

robstoll merged commit 57a3e5d into robstoll:rename-assertion-to-expectation Jan 10, 2021

jGleitz mentioned this pull request Jan 10, 2021

Change Wording from ‘Assertion’ to ‘Expectation’ #746

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

🚧 Rename ‘Assertions’ to ‘Expectations’ #748

🚧 Rename ‘Assertions’ to ‘Expectations’ #748

jGleitz commented Dec 23, 2020 •

edited

Loading

robstoll commented Dec 24, 2020

robstoll Dec 24, 2020 •

edited

Loading

jGleitz Jan 6, 2021

robstoll commented Dec 25, 2020

robstoll commented Dec 27, 2020

jGleitz commented Jan 6, 2021

jGleitz commented Jan 6, 2021

robstoll commented Jan 6, 2021

robstoll commented Jan 6, 2021

jGleitz commented Jan 6, 2021

jGleitz commented Jan 6, 2021

robstoll commented Jan 6, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jGleitz commented Jan 6, 2021

jGleitz commented Jan 6, 2021

robstoll commented Jan 6, 2021

robstoll Jan 6, 2021

robstoll Jan 6, 2021

robstoll Jan 6, 2021

robstoll Jan 10, 2021

robstoll commented Jan 8, 2021

robstoll commented Jan 10, 2021

robstoll commented Jan 10, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jGleitz commented Jan 10, 2021

robstoll commented Jan 10, 2021

jGleitz commented Jan 10, 2021 •

edited

Loading

		@@ -1,12 +0,0 @@
		package ch.tutteli.atrium.scala2.api.fluent.en_GB

🚧 Rename ‘Assertions’ to ‘Expectations’ #748

🚧 Rename ‘Assertions’ to ‘Expectations’ #748

Conversation

jGleitz commented Dec 23, 2020 • edited Loading

robstoll commented Dec 24, 2020

robstoll Dec 24, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jGleitz Jan 6, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

robstoll commented Dec 25, 2020

robstoll commented Dec 27, 2020

jGleitz commented Jan 6, 2021

jGleitz commented Jan 6, 2021

robstoll commented Jan 6, 2021

robstoll commented Jan 6, 2021

jGleitz commented Jan 6, 2021

jGleitz commented Jan 6, 2021

robstoll commented Jan 6, 2021 • edited Loading

jGleitz commented Jan 6, 2021

jGleitz commented Jan 6, 2021

robstoll commented Jan 6, 2021

robstoll Jan 6, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

robstoll Jan 6, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

robstoll Jan 6, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

robstoll Jan 10, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

robstoll commented Jan 8, 2021

robstoll commented Jan 10, 2021

robstoll commented Jan 10, 2021 • edited Loading

jGleitz commented Jan 10, 2021

robstoll commented Jan 10, 2021

jGleitz commented Jan 10, 2021 • edited Loading

jGleitz commented Dec 23, 2020 •

edited

Loading

robstoll Dec 24, 2020 •

edited

Loading

robstoll commented Jan 6, 2021 •

edited

Loading

robstoll commented Jan 10, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jGleitz commented Jan 10, 2021 •

edited

Loading