PreferJavaTimeOverload interacts poorly with AssertJ assumeThat #1437
Assignees
Comments
|
Thanks - we should fix this (and thanks for the PR!) |
cgdecker
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 9, 2019
…hat or assumeThat. Fixes #1437 and #1435 ------------- Created by MOE: https://github.com/google/moe MOE_MIGRATED_REVID=284455194
Merged
cgdecker
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Dec 9, 2019
…hat or assumeThat. Fixes #1437 and #1435 ------------- Created by MOE: https://github.com/google/moe MOE_MIGRATED_REVID=284455194
kmclarnon
pushed a commit
to HubSpot/error-prone
that referenced
this issue
Feb 19, 2020
…hat or assumeThat. Fixes google#1437 and google#1435 ------------- Created by MOE: https://github.com/google/moe MOE_MIGRATED_REVID=284455194
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Description of the problem / feature request:
There's already special casing for AssertJ assertThat, however the
assumeThatfunction has similar problems. Perhaps it would be best to exclude invocations with overloads that are not date types (boolean, arrays, etc) as a general solution rather than individually excluding common libraries.Feature requests: what underlying problem are you trying to solve with this feature?
Same as above.
Bugs: what's the simplest, easiest way to reproduce this bug? Please provide a minimal example if possible.
org.assertj.core.api.Assumptions.assumeThat(1).isEqualTo(1);What version of Error Prone are you using?
2.3.4
Have you found anything relevant by searching the web?
no.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: