The API should support testing for "equivalence" to classes

[codecholeric]

Sometimes a rule only targets a single class (e.g. class Foo is only accessed by classes matching a certain pattern). It should be possible to supply the class object in that case, instead of writing classes().that().haveFullyQualifiedName(Foo.class.getName()). Thus I propose an API extension:

• classes().that().areEquivalentTo(Foo.class)
• classes().should().beEquivalentTo(Foo.class)

which just pipes to JavaClass.isEquivalentTo(Foo.class).

[alex0ptr]

I like the idea, but I feel the proposal looks kind of verbose and could be more precise.
Maybe the(Foo.class) would be more readable. However theClass(Foo.class) or singleClass(Foo.class) would be closer to classes().

I would prefer
the(Foo.class).should()...
over
classes().that().areEquivalentTo(Foo.class).should()...

[codecholeric]

You're right, that would be more concise 😃
Guess the should part could then also be should().be(Foo.class)? Sounds a little strange maybe, since the rule clearly talks about a single class, so why do I have to start with classes()...
I think I like theClass(Foo.class) the best, since as you mentioned, it's closer to classes(), so it might be easier to find, if you just browse methods. (my favorite one would be class(Foo.class) if that was possible 😉 )
Hmm, maybe an empty one would make sense for the point above

theClass().that().isAnnotatedWith(Bar.class).should().be(Foo.class)

Or theOnlyClass()? Either way it could automatically ensure, that the that clause really only leaves one class.