Talk:Requests for comment/Assert

Diversity
Personally, I don't like the different variants of assertions. The syntactic sugar of  is nice, but having to decide whether something is a precondition, a postcondition or an invariant feels like work :-).  Is   an assertion of the argument, a post-condition of the computation so far or a pre-condition of the following computation?  I don't think that being able to raise different exceptions (what to do with them?) is worth it.  --Tim&#160;Landscheidt 04:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Use outside of MediaWiki
Hi Daniel, I think this is an interesting idea (in a good way). The main reservation I have about is mainly a question of naming. Calling it "MWAssert" basically implies that any code that uses it now has a dependency on the MediaWiki monolithic core. Given how little code this is, and how easily this could be used in code with no dependency on MediaWiki (correct?), could we use this to establish a precedent for small modules that are suitable for standalone distribution via Composer or similar means? -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Messages
This sounds wonderful to me. I wonder if it is worth looking at how Guava did this for some inspiration. In particular they accept a format string and an array of arguments for custom messages in some of their assertion methods. They do this to delay building the message for assertion failures when the assertion doesn't fail. --

Optional assertions
It might be nice to have an optional variant that we only execute during development and testing. The Lucene project makes heavy use of something like this (Java's asserts) in performance sensitive code. --

Changeset, please!
We discussed this in Architecture meetings/RFC review 2014-03-12 and asked for the author to submit a changeset into Gerrit. Thanks! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)