Skip to content

Update scalatest to 3.2.20#2792

Merged
pjfanning merged 2 commits intoapache:mainfrom
scala-steward:update/scalatest-3.2.20
Mar 29, 2026
Merged

Update scalatest to 3.2.20#2792
pjfanning merged 2 commits intoapache:mainfrom
scala-steward:update/scalatest-3.2.20

Conversation

@scala-steward
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@scala-steward scala-steward commented Mar 26, 2026

About this PR

📦 Updates org.scalatest:scalatest from 3.2.19 to 3.2.20

📜 GitHub Release Notes - Version Diff

Usage

Please merge!

I'll automatically update this PR to resolve conflicts as long as you don't change it yourself.

If you'd like to skip this version, you can just close this PR. If you have any feedback, just mention me in the comments below.

Configure Scala Steward for your repository with a .scala-steward.conf file.

Have a fantastic day writing Scala!

⚙ Adjust future updates

Add this to your .scala-steward.conf file to ignore future updates of this dependency:

updates.ignore = [ { groupId = "org.scalatest", artifactId = "scalatest" } ]

Or, add this to slow down future updates of this dependency:

dependencyOverrides = [{
  pullRequests = { frequency = "30 days" },
  dependency = { groupId = "org.scalatest", artifactId = "scalatest" }
}]
labels: library-update, early-semver-patch, semver-spec-patch, commit-count:1

@pjfanning pjfanning force-pushed the update/scalatest-3.2.20 branch from d7aeffd to bdae81e Compare March 28, 2026 11:00
@scala-steward scala-steward force-pushed the update/scalatest-3.2.20 branch from bdae81e to 9977799 Compare March 28, 2026 15:22
Update Dependencies.scala

Update Dependencies.scala
@pjfanning pjfanning force-pushed the update/scalatest-3.2.20 branch from 9977799 to 0966643 Compare March 28, 2026 21:28
@pjfanning
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This fails on the Scala 3.3 run consistently with this upgrade. It appears related to scalatest itself as opposed to the scalatestplus jars. Only the scalatestplus:junit-4-13 jar is in scope for this test.

[info] DispatcherActorSpec:
[info] A Dispatcher and an Actor
[info] - must support tell (54 milliseconds)
[info] - must support ask/reply (26 milliseconds)
[info] - must respect the throughput setting *** FAILED *** (5 seconds, 32 milliseconds)
[info]   java.util.concurrent.TimeoutException: Future timed out after [5000 milliseconds]
[info]   at scala.concurrent.impl.Promise$DefaultPromise.tryAwait0(Promise.scala:248)
[info]   at scala.concurrent.impl.Promise$DefaultPromise.result(Promise.scala:261)
[info]   at scala.concurrent.Await$.$anonfun$result$1(package.scala:201)
[info]   at scala.concurrent.BlockContext$DefaultBlockContext$.blockOn(BlockContext.scala:62)
[info]   at scala.concurrent.Await$.result(package.scala:124)
[info]   at org.apache.pekko.actor.dispatch.DispatcherActorSpec.f$proxy3$1(DispatcherActorSpec.scala:100)
[info]   at org.apache.pekko.actor.dispatch.DispatcherActorSpec.$init$$$anonfun$1$$anonfun$3(DispatcherActorSpec.scala:84)

@Philippus
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Philippus commented Mar 29, 2026

If I change the === to == on line 100 the test passes for me. scalatest 3.2.20 does contain a change around the === macro.
Changing line 100 to this also makes the test pass:

      val result = Await.result(slowOne ? "hogexecutor", timeout.duration)
      assert(result === "OK")

@pjfanning
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

pjfanning commented Mar 29, 2026

If I change the === to == on line 100 the test passes for me. scalatest 3.2.20 does contain a change around the === macro. Changing line 100 to this also makes the test pass:

      val result = Await.result(slowOne ? "hogexecutor", timeout.duration)
      assert(result === "OK")

@Philippus thanks for the pointer.
I found the same workaround in d223a93 - at least works for me locally.

I tried to isolate the issue to report it to Scalatest team but so far the cut down test does not exhibit the issue.
https://github.com/pjfanning/scalatest-issue

@pjfanning pjfanning merged commit 2c6cdec into apache:main Mar 29, 2026
9 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants