AssertJ use it everywhere in one test
> > class.
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 at 06:51, Giovanni van der Schelde
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > In a recent PR review, the use of AssertJ assertions was raised as a point
> &g
y, 21 July 2025 at 18:40
To: dev@maven.apache.org
Subject: Re: The use of AssertJ assertions
Hi all,
while I really like the AssertJ assertions, e.g. for readibility and
expandability (custom assertions), I'm slighty against using it in a big
project like Maven (thinking of core, plugins, co
were adopted as an “approved” dependency?
Later,
Andy
From: Matthias Bünger
Date: Monday, 21 July 2025 at 18:40
To: dev@maven.apache.org
Subject: Re: The use of AssertJ assertions
Hi all,
while I really like the AssertJ assertions, e.g. for readibility and
expandability (custom assertions)
As more of a wider question, why would this not be specified in the Parent POM
if it were adopted as an “approved” dependency?
Later,
Andy
From: Matthias Bünger
Date: Monday, 21 July 2025 at 18:40
To: dev@maven.apache.org
Subject: Re: The use of AssertJ assertions
Hi all,
while I really
thias
Am 21.07.2025 um 06:50 schrieb Giovanni van der Schelde:
Hi all,
In a recent PR review, the use of AssertJ assertions was raised as a point
of discussion.
To avoid recurring debates and ensure the PR is reviewed for the changes
it provides, I’d like to propose that we clarify the goal rega
On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 11:13 AM Delany wrote:
>
> If I'm not mistaken Guava's Preconditions is for runtime argument
> validation and should not be used in test code.
It's been a while since I used it. s/Guava/Truth
I just think of them as all part of the same Google Java stack but I
guess that'
ly others I'm forgetting, it just makes the
> > > code harder to read and understand.
> > >
> > > There are indeed test methods in AssertJ that improve error messages
> > > and reporting compared to JUnit. I do wish JUnit had assertContains.
> > > Howe
ve error messages
> > and reporting compared to JUnit. I do wish JUnit had assertContains.
> > However, the casein question wasn't one of these. It was just a
> > different way of writing a standard assertEquals.
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 4:53 AM Giovanni van de
r messages
> and reporting compared to JUnit. I do wish JUnit had assertContains.
> However, the casein question wasn't one of these. It was just a
> different way of writing a standard assertEquals.
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 4:53 AM Giovanni van der Schelde
> wrote:
>
reporting compared to JUnit. I do wish JUnit had assertContains.
However, the casein question wasn't one of these. It was just a
different way of writing a standard assertEquals.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 4:53 AM Giovanni van der Schelde
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> In a recent PR review, th
't have any problem using it.
> > Project is very well maintained and has an acceptable license.
> >
> > One thing I would like to see is do not mix assertions framework in
> > one test class - when we use AssertJ use it everywhere in one test
> > class.
> &
1, Giovanni van der Schelde
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > In a recent PR review, the use of AssertJ assertions was raised as a point
> > of discussion.
> > To avoid recurring debates and ensure the PR is reviewed for the changes
> > it provides,
o see is do not mix assertions framework in
one test class - when we use AssertJ use it everywhere in one test
class.
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 at 06:51, Giovanni van der Schelde
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> In a recent PR review, the use of AssertJ assertions was raised as a point
> of di
Hi all,
In a recent PR review, the use of AssertJ assertions was raised as a point
of discussion.
To avoid recurring debates and ensure the PR is reviewed for the changes
it provides, I’d like to propose that we clarify the goal regarding this,
and perhaps other, dependencies.
Specifically
14 matches
Mail list logo
