Mockito VS thiserror

Mockito 5 Released (1 min)🎉 https://github.com/mockito/mockito/releases/tag/v5.0.0

For those using a "release" testBuildType for integration tests, what does your mocking setup look like? My app is stuck on Mockito 2.23.4, because higher (> 1.8.12) versions of Byte Buddy required beyond that point [do not play nicely with non-debuggable APKs](https://github.com/mockito/mockito/issues/2302). Solutions I've considered so far:

Mockito

The code is pretty self explanatory but here's a quick run down. o.getClass().getDeclaredFields() gets us an array of all the fields. We then have a enhanced for loop that loops over the array. Check if the field is annotated field.isAnnotationPresent(Gucci.class). If it is then we set its modifier to true with field.setAccessible(true);. If we don't do this and the field is private we will get an error. Then we get the binary name of the field, field.getGenericType().getTypeName();, remember its just the package and the class name. Lastly we set the value of the field, field.set(o,dynamicInjection(classLoader,binaryName). With that we have now created a dependency injection annotation with the Junit 5 extension model. Now I am sure you can see the tower of exceptions, which is obviously not ideal. I'm not sure how I want to handle all the exceptions yet. However, I will be digging around the Mockito code base to see if I can find how they handle all their exceptions.

Mockito 3.11.* releases

Hi, I've been trying to write parquet files on android for the past couple of days, and have really been struggling to find a solution. My original hypothesis was to just use the java parquet implementation (https://github.com/apache/parquet-mr), but I've since realized that not all java libraries play well with Android. I've gone through essentially dependency hell trying to franken-fit the library into my project, and imported as much as i could before hitting walls such as this one (https://github.com/mockito/mockito/issues/841).

We can utilize third-party libraries to simplify the code above. For example thiserror (https://github.com/dtolnay/thiserror) provides convenien derive macro for Error trait:

thiserror crate makes it easy to do so using macros on CliError enum.

Depending on your use case, thiserror and/or anyhow.

What is the benefit of splitting a proc-macro crate into (usually) two crates, proc_macro_crate and proc_macro_crate_impl? Why not just have one crate? Does it offer any benefits to to overall compilation times? An example of this can be seen in the thiserror crate where there's a thiserror and thiserror_impl crate.

You might want to use thiserror to generate implementation for Error and Display.

thiserror for my error types.

thiserror - https://crates.io/crates/thiserror

I dont think you realize how ridiculous this comment is. Youre comparing 10 lines of Go, with 200 of Rust:

https://github.com/dtolnay/thiserror/blob/master/src/lib.rs

There are crates out there that help you reduce this boiler plate. thiserror is good for creating custom errors and color-eyre or anyhow are good for dynamic errors.