Add matchers for Atomic Booleans

[sksamuel]

AtomicBoolean(false).shouldBeTrue()

AtomicInteger(123).shouldBeLessThan(555)

And so on.

[simonenkoi]

@sksamuel I see possible problems with the maintainability of such a feature. For example, if we add a new assertion on the type, it will be expected to have the same one for the atomic type.
Do we need to support all the assertions defined on the V type accessible from AtomicReference<V>, not only predefined AtomicBoolean, AtomicInteger, etc.?
AtomicBoolean(false).get().shouldBeTrue() syntax looks clear from my point of view, and, as a user, I guess it will confuse more than help. Please, share your thoughts.

[sksamuel]

Yes, that's a good point.
Maybe just one for the booleans would be sufficient. I was using atomics this morning, and atomic.get().shouldBeTrue() was more verbose than I wanted, when atomic.shouldBeTrue() would have been a tiny bit nicer.

[Megamiun]

Is anyone working on it? If not, I can do it. Should we just make shouldBeTrue and shouldBeFalse?

[sksamuel]

Please feel free to pick this up. and yes those two matchers.

…

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, 23:26 Gabryel Monteiro, ***@***.***> wrote: Is anyone working on it? If not, I can do it. Should we just make shouldBeTrue and shouldBeFalse? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1791 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFVSGVGDRDUU4D6KAKCATDSL6X6DANCNFSM4SYOIRUA> .