simplified some assertions by using #containsExactly

[PascalSchumacher]

I think it is more readable and it gives a nicer failure message, but feel free to reject if you disagree. :)

[aaschmid]

Hi @PascalSchumacher, thanks for the effort and changes. For same parts I really like to explicitly use the array and equals notation to make the test case clearer but at some you are perfectly correct to use "containsExactly" instead. Is there a way for me to change the pull request before merging? On the other hand I will thing about it before getting back to my laptop ;-)

[PascalSchumacher]

Thanks for the quick feedback. :)

You can change everything about a (pull request) commit when you cherry-pick and then amend. It will still show me as the author and you as the committer of the commit.

e.g.:

git fetch origin pull/68/head:simplify_some_assertions
git cherry-pick 62fb1fe3169184a8538910a5b13e1fccbda145e5
do changes you want
git commit --amend

If you add closes #68 to the commit comment github will close the pull request when you push.

You can also just comment on the changes you want me to undo and I will update the pull request myself.

[aaschmid]

No, thanks for the pull request. I will have a closer look on the weekend as this is not urgent :-)

[PascalSchumacher]

Yes, it's not urgent at all. So take you time :-)

[aaschmid]

maybe we cloud use a helper for creating the array instead of using new Object[] { ... } over and over.
Do you also think that it would be better for the test cases above to write down the data explicitly instead of reusing the test data somehow?

[PascalSchumacher]

I'm a fan of creating helper methods for tests. So if it's possible to come up with a descriptive method name I'm for adding it. Maybe something like assertContainsOnlyObjectArrayWithValues(List, values...)?

I agree that it would be better to write down the data explicitly in the test above.

[aaschmid]

After all thanks for the PR and the discussions :-)
I just merged it even if I don't like all the places. I am more considering a new version based on the new junit-lamba rather than investing too much time in this quite stable one ;-)