AutoMapper VS crater

AutoMapper

The only interesting one I found was https://github.com/AutoMapper/AutoMapper/issues/4226 and again, that wasn't automapper's issue, but just how expression engine in C# works. And author resolved it by himself.

While AutoMapper's use has its pros and cons this post is about their code of conduct on their GitHub repository, consider it a rant, or not.

AutoMapper - well for automapping

When working with AutoMapper, we often bump into runtime errors due to invalid mapping configuration, such as this one:

What problems will resolve automapper?

I'm wondering myself. Most mappers like https://automapper.org/ will make a best effort mapper automatically via introspection. If this is just a DSL/annotation suite that requires explicit, complete mapping implementations then this strikes me as a re-implementation of parts of kotlin in kotlin.

If you wan't to know some internals, just read the source code, automapper is opensourced.

yup, they reference it as an inspiration: https://github.com/rust-lang/crater

it's probably impossible to automate an entire ecosystem, and there is value to enabling a tighter integration within a project ecosystem (a subset of the language ecosystem).

Rather than hypothesising about an imagined tool you could look at the actual tool which of course is in Rust's source code repo: https://github.com/rust-lang/crater

> new proposed C++ changes - are checked against only easily and "well-known" accessible package.

Now that I have, so to say, shown you mine, lets see yours. Where is the tool to perform these checks in C++?

The "break things" part of "move fast" is not essential, Rust cares so much about breakage they literally compile and run the tests for every crate on crates.io and github using a tool called Crater. They do this just to test changes, even for stuff thats documented to be unstable, because thats just courtesy. And tooling makes it trivial to switch between Rust versions.

See https://github.com/rust-lang/crater

Rust compiler developers use a tool called Crater to test potentially breaking compiler changes on all crates (Rust's name for libraries) uploaded to the official repository. If plugin stability is the issue, maybe a solution along these lines would be better than merging these plugins to Neovim's core?

https://github.com/rust-lang/crater is the bot they use to test proposed compiler/stdlib changes against slices of the crates.io library up to and including "all of it".

The tool you're referring to is called Crater: https://github.com/rust-lang/crater.

I'm pretty certain this isn't actually true. You should look at the editions, etc. Rust also has an insane guarantee which I am certain C/C++ don't offer: It rebuilds its entire library ecosystem each time it ships to make sure nothing breaks (https://crater.rust-lang.org). I've never seen an instance were old code didn't compile on a new compiler. Rust isn't forwards compatible (new code compiles on an old compiler) of course, but what is?

You cut out a key word:

> Linux is really hurt here by the total lack of any unit testing or UI scripting standards.

> standards

I've been very impressed reading how the Rust developers handle this. They have a tool called crater[1], which runs regression tests for the compiler against all Rust code ever released on crates.io or GitHub. Every front-facing change that is even slightly risky must pass a crater run.

https://github.com/rust-lang/crater

Surely Microsoft has internal tools for Windows that do the same thing: run a battery of tests across popular apps and make sure nothing in the OS breaks any user apps.

Where's the similar test harness for Linux you can run that tests hundreds of popular apps across Wayland/X11 and Gnome/KDE/XFCE and makes sure everything still works?