Clojurians Log v2

@scott.silver asked this in #cider: https://clojurians.slack.com/archives/C0617A8PQ/p1592435925498900 I'm also curious what's your approach with stest/instrument and evaluating a clojure buffer since it must be a problem with other editors too. In short, after you evaluate a ns buffer all the instrumentation is gone and you need to call instrument again manually which is cumbersome and easy to forget. Developers then commit spec errors which are only found much later, etc.

If I'm using instrument with dev/test, I have a call to instrument as part of each test namespace. See https://github.com/seancorfield/next-jdbc/blob/develop/test/next/jdbc_test.clj#L21 (and similar lines in every test ns in next.jdbc).

You could make it part of you fixtures if you wanted to ensure it was added for every test you ran via the REPL from your editor but I think this is enough to ensure a full test run uses specs.

Interesting, but I'm more worried about real "src" namespaces, rather than tests... do you have instrument calls there as well?

No. Why would you?

You want instrumentation in place for testing, not production.

We enable instrumentation for all fdef-s in dev mode (when running in REPL) to catch issues early - it's not enabled in production

I am assuming the following ways to define a spec are equivalent ? The seem to provide the same results with confirm/valid? etc.

(def suit? #{:clubs :diamonds :hearts :spades})
(spec/def ::suit #{:clubs :diamonds :hearts :spades})

either is fine. s/form probably works better with sets