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.

No eta

not even approximation? before Christmas, 2nd quarter next year etc.?

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.

Thanks

@ag there is a backport of specs for 1.8, https://github.com/tonsky/clojure-future-spec

@wagjo yeah, I switched to backport. Worked as a charm.

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 🙂