Should unmatched error be handled as an assertion error

[eliasson]

If a test match on one of Either[L, R] and the other occurs should intent handle that and provide a nice assertion error instead?

Same for all unmatched errors?

[provegard]

Yes I think so

[provegard]

This is the output when there is a match error:

[info] [FAILED] intent.matchers.ToEqualTest >> toEqual >> lab >> match error (2 ms)
[info]  Test error (C:\kod\projects\dotty-intent\src\test\scala\intent\matchers\ToEqualTest.scala:14:51)
[info]
[info]  scala.MatchError: None (of class scala.None$)
[info]          at intent.matchers.ToEqualTest.$init$$$anonfun$3$$anonfun$2$$anonfun$2(ToEqualTest.scala:14)
[info]          at intent.core.IntentStatelessSyntax.in$$anonfun$1(internal.scala:293)
[info]          at intent.core.IntentStateBase$TestCase.liftedTree2$2(internal.scala:162)
[info]          at intent.core.IntentStateBase$TestCase.run$$anonfun$1(internal.scala:169)
[info]          at scala.concurrent.impl.Promise$Transformation.run(Promise.scala:433)
[info]          at scala.concurrent.BatchingExecutor$AbstractBatch.runN(BatchingExecutor.scala:134)
[info]          at scala.concurrent.BatchingExecutor$AsyncBatch.apply(BatchingExecutor.scala:163)
[info]          at scala.concurrent.BatchingExecutor$AsyncBatch.apply(BatchingExecutor.scala:146)
[info]          at scala.concurrent.BlockContext$.usingBlockContext(BlockContext.scala:107)
[info]          at scala.concurrent.BatchingExecutor$AsyncBatch.run(BatchingExecutor.scala:154)
[info]          at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask$RunnableExecuteAction.exec(ForkJoinTask.java:1426)
[info]          at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask.doExec(ForkJoinTask.java:290)
[info]          at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool$WorkQueue.topLevelExec(ForkJoinPool.java:1020)
[info]          at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.scan(ForkJoinPool.java:1656)
[info]          at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.runWorker(ForkJoinPool.java:1594)
[info]          at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinWorkerThread.run(ForkJoinWorkerThread.java:177)

Do we want more?

[eliasson]

No that is enough for now.

I think I was thinking about adding some sugar to match on either / option / future when I created this issue. Currently the either matchers used in our tests are pretty verbose (although very clear).