I totally support this proposal.
Testing is one of those areas where Pig does not shine.
Cleaning up the mess there is definitely something I would like to see.
Also, many tests have been replaced by e2e tests, haven't they?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 20:55, Jonathan Coveney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Backwards compatibility is really important for patches etc, but I would
> like to set a line in the sand (even far out), where we give people a ton
> of headway, and then we allow ourselves to make big structural changes that
> break patch compatibility.
> Big ones:
> - Clean up formatting in files
> - Change the test structure
> - Change the source structure (going to happen with mavenization anyway, I
> I'm sure there are other things like that. We could say "in 1 year, this
> will happen" or whatever, and for a couple months we could rebase patches
> against both to make it easier or something.
> 2012/3/27 Daniel Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I'd like to but it's a huge project. We need to figure out what each
> > test is doing and put them in the right package. We need to
> > split/merge lots of test, also there are many tests cross packages, we
> > need to figure a way to deal with it.
> > Daniel
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Bill Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Is there a good reason why almost all pig tests live in
> > org.apache.pig.test
> > > and not in the package of the class they're testing? This approach
> > > that many methods need to be made public just for testing instead of
> > > package private. It also makes it harder to find tests in a package
> > > 212 classes in it.
> > >
> > > What would people feel about changing this standard to put test classes
> > in
> > > the package name of the class you're testing? It would be great to move
> > > classes to new packages, but then there's that whole breaking patches
> > > part...
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > Bill