crunch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Wills <jwi...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: The future of crunch-test
Date Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:55:09 GMT
Yep, pretty sure it was me. :) +1 for saying goodbye after the MRUnit release.

J

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Matthias Friedrich <matt@mafr.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think the reason why we created crunch-test originally was that
> someone (probably Josh ;-)) needed the TemporaryPath class for some
> other project. We recently managed to get this into MRUnit
> [MRUNIT-162], so this reason no longer exists. Also, JUnit 4.11
> fixed some Scala-related problem with the @Rule mechanism, so another
> workaround is no longer needed.
>
> I've never been happy with crunch-test - we're not in the business
> of building test frameworks that aren't really related to Crunch
> (remember, crunch depends on crunch-test, not the other way round)
> and its dependencies caused us a lot of licensing trouble with the
> binary distribution.
>
> If we dropped crunch-test after MRUnit 1.1 is released, we could
> get rid of 6 individual licenses (junit, hamcrest-core, mockito-all,
> which includes cglib, asm, and objenesis), 5 of which aren't Apache
> licensed and one even requires a NOTICE entry. I might even throw in a
> test suite refactoring to get rid of our Project Gutenberg, err,
> dependency ;-)
>
> What do you think?
>
> Regards,
>   Matthias
>
> [MRUNIT-162] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRUNIT-162



-- 
Director of Data Science
Cloudera
Twitter: @josh_wills

Mime
View raw message