-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 311
This issue was moved to a discussion.
You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →
The future of community modules (the testcontainers-*
packages)
#412
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
all three currently available maintainers have a consensus (2 strongly, and one slightly) leaning towards the consolidated package approach but I wanted to make this decision publicly recorded in github issues, as well as to let people weigh in for consideration as well. thank you. |
testcontainers-*
packagestestcontainers-*
packages)
hey @alexanderankin I've modified the title and pinned this as a major issue. Comments on what to do are welcome! |
Hey happy to help where I can |
Hey @covatic-john thanks for the offer! We'll definitnely take that up! I need to wrap my head around how we can split some of the work.
In addition, having chatted with Testcontainers staff they are also keen on reducing the number of "official" modules and try to make the generic containers flexible and easy to use (improving wait conditions for example). If you fancy comparing Cheers! |
I’ll take look :) have a great weekend
… On 16 Feb 2024, at 09:22, Bálint Bartha ***@***.***> wrote:
Hey @covatic-john <https://github.com/covatic-john> thanks for the offer! We'll definitnely take that up! I need to wrap my head around how we can split some of the work.
We're fairly settled to have only one package with extras at this point. It's just too complex to manage PyPI otherwise.
What remains is increasing quality and decide on what "official" container flavours to support and how.
Specifically the work with mypy is a pain in the back because of the many modules we already have.
Splitting the work by modules might help to parallelise the work.
In addition, having chatted with Testcontainers staff they are also keen on reducing the number of "official" modules and try to make the generic containers flexible and easy to use (improving wait conditions for example).
If you fancy comparing tc-java, tc-go and tc-python for features it would be awesome as it gives us some ideas on what to aim for. To be clear, no expectations, just giving you ideas on what you could help with.
Cheers!
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#412 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BC3KZVP2A5I264BORCCMSB3YT4QOXAVCNFSM6AAAAABB3KFVTSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSNBYGAZDINZUGQ>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
--
This email and any attachments are confidential, may contain privileged
material and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it
is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of Covatic. If you are not
the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action
based upon its content, nor copy nor show it to anyone.
Covatic is a
limited company registered in England & Wales. Registration number:
10422855. Registered office: 412-413 Scott House, The Custard Factory, Gibb
Street, Birmingham, B9 4AA.
|
This issue was moved to a discussion.
You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →
The
testcontainers-*
packages, e.g.:were added as part of the last release, but it introduces a lot of complexity, for what could be just a lot of optional dependency groups in one package.
As it stands,
the dependency tree is something like:
but it could look like:
downsides:
testcontainers[postgres]
rather than justtestcontainers
.upsides:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: