Planning for 0.19 and 5.0.0

[mgold]

Although it's fair to question whether we should group API and language changes together. I'd be open to updating to 0.19 on the 4.x line, and following up with breaking API when we are good and ready. That will also help isolate bugs in the test runners.

Changes that need/should to be done for 0.19:

• Update the node runner to use elm.json and test-dependencies (@rtfeldman )
• Update the HTML runner to use elm.json and test-dependencies (@hkgumbs ?)
• Use pure Elm for laziness (lazy package going away in 0.19) Use pure elm for laziness #184 (@eeue56)
• Use core Random instead of 3rd party lib (@mgold)
  • elm-lang/core#887
• Update dependencies
• Convert elm-package.json to elm.json
• Update docs re: elm.json

Changes considered for 5.0.0:

• Safer Test.Runner API Alternative (safer) Test.Runner API? #179 (@hkgumbs and @rtfeldman, maybe @zwilias)
• Removing Fuzz.andThen, change Test.Runner.fuzz API Removing Fuzz.andThen #183 (ready to merge)
• Remove Fuzz.conditional (discussed on Slack)
• Update changelog

Punting:

• Issues with error messages, seem to be resolved by installing latest versions of everything (Compilation failed for elm-stuff/generated-code/elm-community/elm-test/src/Mainf0d769d3faab65e5c3d6b7dbe1470495.elm #178, Better compilation error messages? #176, Compilation fails on running tests #181)
• Changes to how fuzzing/shrinking works, except for those that can be submitted to elm-community/shrink independently of elm-test
  • Improve list shrinking #199 is under consideration, but not a release blocker
• Other API additions that are MINOR changes

All of this is subject to community discussion and approval.

[rtfeldman]

I like this plan. No reason to block people from upgrading to 0.19 until they find replacement solutions for what they're using `andThen` or `conditional` for today. So in 4.0.0 the only breaking change would be switching to `core` Random's (equivalent, but technically different) types?

…

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017, 12:55 PM Max Goldstein ***@***.***> wrote: Although it's fair to question whether we should group API and language changes together. I'd be open to updating to 0.19 on the 4.x line, and following up with breaking API when we are good and ready. That will also help isolate bugs in the test runners. Changes that need/should to be done for 0.19: - Update the node runner to use elm.json and test-dependencies ( @rtfeldman <https://github.com/rtfeldman> ) - Update the HTML runner to use elm.json and test-dependencies ( @hkgumbs <https://github.com/hkgumbs> ?) - Use pure Elm for laziness (lazy package going away in 0.19) #183 <#183> ***@***.*** <https://github.com/eeue56>) - Use core Random instead of 3rd party lib (requires a few more changes to core) ***@***.*** <https://github.com/mgold>) - Convert elm-package.json to elm.json - Update docs re: elm.json Changes considered for 5.0.0: - Safer Test.Runner API #179 <#179> ***@***.*** <https://github.com/hkgumbs> and @rtfeldman <https://github.com/rtfeldman>, maybe @zwilias <https://github.com/zwilias>) - Removing Fuzz.andThen, change Test.Runner.fuzz API #183 <#183> (ready to merge) - Remove Fuzz.conditional (discussed on Slack) - Update changelog Punting: - Issues with error messages, seem to be resolved by installing latest versions of everything (#178 <#178>, #176 <#176>, #181 <#181>) - Changes to how fuzzing/shrinking works, except for those that can be submitted to elm-community/shrink independently of elm-test - Other API additions that are MINOR changes All of this is subject to community discussion and approval. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#191>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABCxwJPWAFHQvQyFc5Q6UaLX5Ix7h52qks5sMQYFgaJpZM4OSHfR> .

[mgold]

So in 4.0.0

We've already released 4.0.0.

Oh right, changing Random will be a breaking change. Technically, but not actually. Silly elm-package.

I want to avoid two major version bumps in the near future. I will work to make core/Random compatible with our needs. Then we'll swap over elm-test.

[rtfeldman]

Ha, good point about 4 being the current one. 😅 I'm okay with going to 5 for 0.19 and then 6 with more serious breaking changes like taking out `andThen` and `conditional`. We could actually move both of those to like `Test.Deprecated` for 5.0 so people have a heads-up but can still upgrade easily if they're not ready to switch yet.

…

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017, 1:46 PM Max Goldstein ***@***.***> wrote: So in 4.0.0 We've already released 4.0.0. Oh right, changing Random will be a breaking change. Technically, but not actually. Silly elm-package. I want to avoid *two* major version bumps in the near future. I will work to make core/Random compatible with our needs. Then we'll swap over elm-test. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#191 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABCxwEurQWpus2CRv0zLgFdh8GvPE2Syks5sMRH6gaJpZM4OSHfR> .

[jwoudenberg]

@rtfeldman I definitely see the advantage for users of moving features to Test.Deprecated. The disadvantage I see is that while we have andThen in that module our fuzzers will not be statically analysable which would preclude some optimisations we might start thinking about.

[rtfeldman]

We can start working on those on an unreleased branch where `andThen` is gone, yeah?

…

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017, 3:08 PM Jasper Woudenberg ***@***.***> wrote: @rtfeldman <https://github.com/rtfeldman> I definitely see the advantage for users of moving features to Test.Deprecated. The disadvantage I see is that while we have andThen in that module our fuzzers will not be statically analysable which would preclude some optimisations we might start thinking about. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#191 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABCxwIN_8qcfw1nMUqi-6jfCYJJVrrvPks5sMSUWgaJpZM4OSHfR> .

[rtfeldman]

Actually if deprecation is the plan, I kinda like the idea of making a 5.0.0 branch for 0.19 now, finalizing the changes (deprecation etc), getting rid of `andThen` on master, and then continuing work on master for 6.0. On Sun, Jul 9, 2017, 3:14 PM Richard Feldman <[email protected]> wrote:

…

We can start working on those on an unreleased branch where `andThen` is gone, yeah? On Sun, Jul 9, 2017, 3:08 PM Jasper Woudenberg ***@***.***> wrote: > @rtfeldman <https://github.com/rtfeldman> I definitely see the advantage > for users of moving features to Test.Deprecated. The disadvantage I see > is that while we have andThen in that module our fuzzers will not be > statically analysable which would preclude some optimisations we might > start thinking about. > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#191 (comment)>, > or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABCxwIN_8qcfw1nMUqi-6jfCYJJVrrvPks5sMSUWgaJpZM4OSHfR> > . >

[mgold]

I'm okay with going to 5 for 0.19 and then 6 with more serious breaking
changes like taking out andThen and conditional.

Are there any breaking changes absolutely required for 0.19 compatibility? I'm not sure there are any.

[rtfeldman]

Not if you publish an 0.19-compatible mgold/elm-random-pcg release.

Otherwise Fuzz.custom currently takes a Random.PcgGenerator, and it'll take a Random.Generator instead if we switch to using core.

[mgold]

Not if you publish an 0.19-compatible mgold/elm-random-pcg release.

I can do that. Give people (like us!) time to transition, and complain about anything that's different in core.

Let's do everything in 5.0.0 and save 6.0.0 for the distant future. (Distant in a software development sense.)

[rtfeldman]

Okay, that works for me.

That said, I think we're agreed that there will be a future release which removes andThen, so @jwoudenberg I think it's safe to continue (on a branch) under the assumption that this will happen post-0.19, yeah?

[Maxim-Filimonov]

Hi, found this after a quick try to use with 0.19. Are there plans to update this library to 0.19 ?

[mgold]

It's at elm-explorations/test. You'll also want nom I -g elm-test@beta.

I also think it's time to close this issue.