Add method toClassDependencies() to JavaAccess and to SliceDependency #1250
Conversation
| @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ | |||
| * </code></pre> | |||
| * | |||
| * The semantics of the new condition will be {@code (public OR private) AND haveNameMatching} | |||
| * – and not {@code public || (private && haveNameMatching)}. | |||
| * - and not {@code public || (private && haveNameMatching)}. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would this work for you as well?
--- a/buildSrc/src/main/groovy/archunit.java-conventions.gradle
+++ b/buildSrc/src/main/groovy/archunit.java-conventions.gradle
@@ -15,4 +15,5 @@ tasks.withType(JavaCompile) { Task task ->
javadoc {
options.addBooleanOption('html5', true)
+ options.encoding = UTF_8.toString()
}There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it works too, I reverted my change and applied your suggestion.
| * @return all matching class dependencies. | ||
| */ | ||
| @PublicAPI(usage = ACCESS) | ||
| public Set<Dependency> toClassDependencies() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The name might be inspired by the previous usage of Dependency.tryCreateFromAccess in JavaClassDependencies (which is no public API). I wonder whether the name getDependencies might be more intuitive? (Same in SliceDependency.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The method name was chosen as in the existing method com.tngtech.archunit.library.modules.ModuleDependency#toClassDependencies
To be honest, I would use getDependencies otherwise.
I have also considered adding an interface declaring this method. It might be called SomeDependency and implemented by JavaAccess, SliceDependency, ModuleDependency, and Dependency. I decided against it only because I was not sure about its name.
| @@ -23,6 +26,9 @@ public void when_the_origin_is_an_inner_class_the_toplevel_class_is_displayed_as | |||
| .inLineNumber(7); | |||
|
|
|||
| assertThat(access.getDescription()).contains("(SomeClass.java:7)"); | |||
| Dependency dependency = getOnlyElement(access.toClassDependencies()); | |||
| assertThatType(dependency.getTargetClass()).as("target class").isEqualTo(access.getTargetOwner()); | |||
| Assertions.assertThat(dependency.getDescription()).as("description").isEqualTo(access.getDescription()); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd move the test for access.toClassDependencies() to a separate test, as it's not really related to when_the_origin_is_an_inner_class_the_toplevel_class_is_displayed_as_location.
Signed-off-by: Dimitry Polivaev <dimitry.polivaev@unite.eu> Signed-off-by: Dimitry Polivaev <dpolivaev@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Dimitry Polivaev <dimitry.polivaev@unite.eu> Signed-off-by: Dimitry Polivaev <dpolivaev@gmx.de>
This reverts commit a95c7c3. Signed-off-by: Dimitry Polivaev <dimitry.polivaev@unite.eu> Signed-off-by: Dimitry Polivaev <dpolivaev@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Dimitry Polivaev <dimitry.polivaev@unite.eu> Signed-off-by: Dimitry Polivaev <dpolivaev@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Dimitry Polivaev <dimitry.polivaev@unite.eu> Signed-off-by: Dimitry Polivaev <dpolivaev@gmx.de>
|
As discussed I think this is superseded by #1251. If not, feel free to reopen / re-discuss 🙂 |
No description provided.