-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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
Merge 2.13.x/3.1.x into 3.2.x #4633
Conversation
[doctrineGH-4613] Use utf8mb4 instead of utf8 for testing connection charset
Display metrics of 3.1 instead of 3.0
Support Doctrine Cache 2
* 2.13.x: Support Doctrine Cache 2 Display metrics of 3.1 instead of 3.0 [doctrineGH-4613] Use utf8mb4 instead of utf8 for testing connection charset
* 3.1.x: Support Doctrine Cache 2 Display metrics of 3.1 instead of 3.0 [doctrineGH-4613] Use utf8mb4 instead of utf8 for testing connection charset
@derrabus what's the difference between |
The |
A functional test cannot perform assertions on implementation details – that's why it has to be reworked when implementation details change creating a sense of a BC break. Since caching is by definition a non-functional requirement I'm curious if caching can be tested in a functional way at all. We already had a similar discussion in #4189 (comment). Should we just get rid of this "functional" test? |
Sorry for the late reply. My understanding of the test is "If this operation is performed, make sure that something has been written to the cache". I think, this is a valid thing to test. One could argue if there's a better way to do this, but for this PR (because it's just a merge from a lower branch), my main concern was to make the test work as it had before. |
This would be the responsibility of a unit test that would have changed as soon as the new implementation was introduced, not during a merge-up.
My main concern is that the caching piece of logic is barely maintainable (not your fault), so the rework of its internals could be used as an opportunity to improve the tests as well. @greg0ire please step in and review. |
I've created #4639 to resolve the issue before we merge the branches. Let's continue the discussion there. |
Follows #4632