Misery Map adds two crucial pieces of context: the delays between airports, and rain/snow on the map, which often is the reason for delays. It's nice to see it all together.
From a project management perspective, the 5 examples don't help me understand how/why I might switch from Playwright/Cypress to this framework. It seems like Bombadil is a much lower-level test framework focusing on DOM properties but in the "Why Bombadil?" introduction you say "maintaining suites of Playwright or Cypress tests takes a lot of work" ... I'd like if there was an example showing how this is true, perhaps a 1:1 example of Playwright vs Bombadil for testing something such as notifications clearing when I click clear. Basically, beefing up examples with real-world ones that Playwright users might have written is a good way to foster adoption.
This is a great point. Bombadil _is_ also tied to the DOM much like those tools, but as you focus on providing just a set of generators (which can be largely the defaults already supplied by Bombadil), you get a lot of testing from a small spec. You might need to specify some parts in terms of DOM selectors and such, and that has coupling, but I think the power-to-weight ratio is a lot better because of PBT.
Many teams work exclusively in GitHub (ticketing, boards, workflows, dev builds). People also have entire production build systems on GitHub. There's a lot more than git repo hosting.
It's especially painful for anyone who uses Github actions for CI/CD - maybe the release you just cut never actually got deployed to prod because their internal trigger didn't fire... you need to watch it like a hawk.
None of those words appear in the article. I can deduce that the author of this article would never return a wallet. If they are this perplexed at the good deeds of others, and need to turn to science for a reason, they are as dense as a brick.
Reasons:
- because kind strangers have empathy
- because kind strangers want to do what is right, and help others
- because kind strangers would hope the same thing is done when they lose their own wallet
Lines with actual code changes aren't a problem for me, it's the automated IDE indent/spacing/bracketing that really drives me up a wall and fatigues the hell out of me.
But this might only be a problem with those of us working on legacy codebases. The kind of PRs I see in OSS projects I could review 1000 lines at a time - it's so clean!
Yeah, it's really something that you have to get buy-in for.
You could always make a commit that just has the reformatting when you do start editing a file. If it turns out you didn't need to edit that file after all, then you can revert just that commit easily. And if you did, you can collect up all the reformatting commits into a PR as a first step.
The flip side of this is making minimal surgical small changes, and then doing the refactoring after the change. The key message though is split them.
Refactoring doesn't change behavior, so refactoring efforts should be judged only on "tests exist that cover the functionality, those tests continue to pass, the code is easier to maintain". It's when you add "changed functionality, so we changed the test" to review at the same time, that this becomes a hassle.
