Move internal extracting to AbstractAssert

[scordio]

The PR is not ready yet, tests and javadoc need some reworking.

@kriegfrj @bjhargrave would this help your needs?

@joel-costigliola I added the isPublic() matcher to METHODS_CHANGING_THE_OBJECT_UNDER_TEST in SoftProxies to allow a protected extracting without changing the method name. At the moment I don't see any side effect but please let me know your opinion about it. ✅ Applied in 3534841.

Check List:

• Fixes Custom Assertions and comparison failures #1731
• Unit tests : YES
• Javadoc with a code example (on API only) : YES

[bjhargrave]

I think, with suggested changes, this will meet our use cases.

[scordio]

Thanks for the feedback @bjhargrave! I should be able to continue on this topic in the next days.

In general InstanceOfAssertFactory<T,ASSERT> should be InstanceOfAssertFactory<? super T,ASSERT> to provide maximum flexibility.

I agree with you that it would make sense to increase flexibility, I only want to see the impact of it adding proper tests. If the changes get too big, I may do them in a separate PR.

[kriegfrj]

A few ideas

[bjhargrave]

I built this PR locally and tried using the new extracting(Function,AssertFactory) method in my custom assert class. It looks good to me. The code compiled fine and passed the tests which verified the assertion state was propagated.

Thanks!

@@ -210,8 +198,7 @@ public abstract class AbstractPromiseAssert<SELF extends AbstractPromiseAssert<S
         *             resolved successfully.
         */
        public AbstractThrowableAssert<?, ? extends Throwable> hasFailedWithThrowableThat() {
-               return hasFailed().asObjectAssert()
-                       .extracting(this::getFailure, InstanceOfAssertFactories.THROWABLE);
+               return hasFailed().extracting(this::getFailure, InstanceOfAssertFactories.THROWABLE);
        }
 
        void assertNotFailed() {
@@ -271,8 +258,7 @@ public abstract class AbstractPromiseAssert<SELF extends AbstractPromiseAssert<S
         *             resolved with a failure.
         */
        public AbstractObjectAssert<?, RESULT> hasValueThat() {
-               return isSuccessful().asObjectAssert()
-                       .extracting(this::getValue);
+               return isSuccessful().extracting(this::getValue, Assertions::assertThat);
        }
 
        /**
@@ -294,7 +280,7 @@ public abstract class AbstractPromiseAssert<SELF extends AbstractPromiseAssert<S
         */
        public <ASSERT extends AbstractAssert<?, ?>> ASSERT hasValueThat(
                InstanceOfAssertFactory<? super RESULT, ASSERT> assertFactory) {
-               return hasValueThat().asInstanceOf(assertFactory);
+               return isSuccessful().extracting(this::getValue, assertFactory);
        }

[scordio]

@bjhargrave thanks for the feedback, glad it worked! To make it mergeable I need to rework the tests a bit more but I don't expect further changes in AbstractAssert.

[bjhargrave]

Thanks so much for all your work on this!