utest

nd form a hierarchy, or having a tagging discipline that forms a hierarchy to let you call tests that are related, or simply using files as the leaf-level of the larger filesystem tree to organize your tests. All that works, but it is nice to be able to simplify define a tree of tests in a single file and have all that taken care of for you

ackoverflow.com/a/14442630. Devs don't want to do an extensive research project to figure out what JSON lib to use. * Shift from Scalatest to utest / munit for the reasons outlined here: https://github.com/com-lihaoyi/utest#why-utest * Fill in "obvious library gaps" with good solutions. Scala needs a graph library that's usable like networkx for example. Li's libs are so popular cause he exposes beautiful Python-like interfaces (with crazy, performant Scala implementations under the hood). * Embracing devs that want to use Scala as a "better Python" rather than giving them the message "if you use Scala, you need to do it the Scala-way". Scala is a multi-paradigm language and using the language in different ways should be encouraged. * Getting the community to use the Principle of Least power is perhaps the hardest: https://www.lihaoyi.com/post/StrategicScalaStylePrincipleofL.... I find the doc to be cut-and-dry, but have found it less useful than I originally thought for resolving technical disputes. The hard work has been done to build Mill, utest/munit, scalafmt, metals, etc. Scala just needs to make some opinionated choices so the ecosystem is appealing to ppl that aren't as into programming. It'll be interesting to see if Spark is able to upgrade to Scala 3 or if they get stuck on Scala 2.13.

by most projects and is annoying to use, as described here: https://github.com/lihaoyi/utest#why-utest. The overuse of DSLs in Scala is really annoying. I agree with the overuse of DSLs. Luckily that got much better, but older libraries like scalatest still suffer from that. > * Li's libs (os-lib, upickle, utest) have clean public interfaces, but most Scala ecosystem libs are hard to use, see the JSON alternatives for examples I think that just comes from using the library in a non-idiomatic way. In most applications, you will need to use the whole json anyways, and then you use (or can use) circe like that: { "id": "c730433b-082c-4984-9d66-855c243266f0", "name": "Foo", "counts": [1, 2, 3], "values": { "bar": true, "baz": 100.001, "qux": ["a", "b"] } } case class Data( id: String, name: String, count: List[Int], values: List[DataValue] ) case class DataValue( bar: Boolean, baz: Float, qux: List[String] ) import circe.generic.auto._ import io.circe.parser._ val data = decode[Data]("...").get data.copy(name = data.name.reverse).asJson Yeah, that is more code, but as I said, in the vast majority for projects, you need all or most of the fields anyways, so all the structure definition is a one-time thing. The advantage is that the last line is plain Scala code. You don't even need to understand the json-library to do transformations and re-encode into json.

here: https://github.com/lihaoyi/utest#why-utest. The overuse of DSLs in Scala is really annoying. Too many DSLs is another example of something I consider to be an antipattern, but there is no Scala community consensus on the responsible use of DSLs. I'm optimistic about Scala. There are some folks that love the language and are continuously improving the ecosystem. Scala 3 will have to sell a better story about ditching legacy tooling and giving users a better default stack if it wants to compete with modern Go/Rust/Python.