This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2016-09-03
Channels
- # admin-announcements (1)
- # beginners (4)
- # boot (1)
- # chestnut (2)
- # clara (1)
- # cljs-dev (8)
- # cljsjs (50)
- # clojure (40)
- # clojure-austin (3)
- # clojure-brasil (3)
- # clojure-canada (1)
- # clojure-gamedev (2)
- # clojure-italy (3)
- # clojure-russia (19)
- # clojure-spec (14)
- # clojure-uk (1)
- # clojurescript (60)
- # core-async (4)
- # cursive (4)
- # datomic (3)
- # editors-rus (2)
- # emacs (4)
- # events (1)
- # figwheel (2)
- # flambo (4)
- # hoplon (94)
- # jobs (4)
- # leiningen (3)
- # om (9)
- # onyx (64)
- # re-frame (86)
- # reagent (52)
- # spacemacs (4)
- # test-check (1)
- # yada (31)
can anyone tell me ETA of 1.9 stable? I already have a piece of code that depends on clojure.spec, unfortunately my team did not approve my PR (bunch of alpha-phobics), that makes it a bit inconvenient for me personally.
I'm sure we will try to hit some milestone before the conj but may just be beta (feature freeze)
We have a couple other things in flight that we haven't even talked about yet
We are not currently working towards any concrete deadline though
yeah, ok… I am so excited though. Spec turns out to be a massive feature of the platform. I really like it.
@ag there is a backport of specs for 1.8, https://github.com/tonsky/clojure-future-spec
Are you generally expected to add enough info to s/fdef such that running check on that fn works? Is that considered the “default” state? I’m writing reasonably gnarly generators to make that work, because I have two args with related keys (and if you picked args at random, you’d almost ceratinly end up with garbage)
Hm. I wonder if it’s OK for an fdef’s :args to have a generator that uses the fn being fdef’d (a lot of functions can clearly be run with a “base case” if you will; e.g. if you have something that conjs a bunch of stuff together, you might conj a bit ahead of time and assert that it doesn’t throw away previously conj’d things)
I think so, but with the apparently suggested pattern of fdefing before the defn itself, you run into a compile error; so I’m wondering if I should just declare it and be done with it or what 🙂
FYI, got a weird error when running clojure.spec.test/check + deftest through CIDER (and only CIDER): https://github.com/clojure-emacs/cider/issues/1841 Might be interesting for upstream to look into since just because CIDER ran into it (or rather; I only ran into it with CIDER) doesn’t mean it’s necessarily CIDER-specific 🙂