2017-11-13 13:42 GMT+03:00 Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>: > On 13/11/17 09:49, Mark Thomas wrote: > > <snip/> > >> Hmm. >> >> As I started to look at this I realised that a large number of the >> classes with errors are only using the static import a few times. Some >> of them are using a mix of static and non-static imports. >> >> Given that switching to the non-static usage also fixes the issue, I'm >> going to apply that fix first and then see what is left. Generally, I >> plan to apply it when switching to the non-static usage results in >> roughly the same amount of code or less. > > Given that: > > - the majority of the test classes don't use static imports > - the majority of the test classes Gump is complaining about only use a > few static Asserts > - only a small number of test classes use a large number of static > Asserts > - global search and replace can remove all the static Assert imports > quickly and easily > - removing static Asserts fixes the Checkstyle warnings for Gump and > works with all branches > > I'm going to go with removing static Assert (and similar) imports from > the unit tests. >
Honestly, I do not like this, but this is not a technical issue, it is your itch, not worth to spend much time discussing. I think this reduces code readability, may surprise newcomers. (My theory. One should ask a real newcomer.) I think the trends in writing asserts are to use assertThat + Hamcrest library matcher, and they look better with static imports. https://github.com/junit-team/junit4/wiki/matchers-and-assertthat Best regards, Konstantin Kolinko --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
