The future of community modules (the testcontainers-*
packages)
#502
Replies: 4 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. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
hey @alexanderankin I've modified the title and pinned this as a major issue. Comments on what to do are welcome! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hey happy to help where I can |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
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! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
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:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions