Reflection equality improvements #1413
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
sschuberth
force-pushed
the
reflection-equality-improvements
branch
from
ee07b97
to
34f0eac
Compare
sksamuel
reviewed
Apr 26, 2020
| @@ -139,7 +141,6 @@ fun <T : Any> beEqualToUsingFields(other: T, vararg fields: KProperty<*>): Match | |||
| * Note: Throws [IllegalArgumentException] in case [properties] parameter is not provided. | |||
| */ | |||
| fun <T : Any> T.shouldBeEqualToIgnoringFields(other: T, vararg properties: KProperty<*>) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you think this method should allow specifying no fields? Equal to ignoring nothing? That would seem to be a strange way to use this method.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, that's what has been recommend to me for me use case. From a strictly logical perspective this sounds alright, but I agree it feels a bit unnatural.
But if neither shouldBeEqualToUsingFields nor shouldBeEqualToIgnoringFields offer an easy way to compare all fields, and preferably also with an option to compare private fields, what's the alternative?
|
What about adding shouldBeEqualToUsingAllFields ?
…On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 12:27, Sebastian Schuberth ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In
kotest-assertions/kotest-assertions-core/src/jvmMain/kotlin/io/kotest/matchers/equality/reflection.kt
<#1413 (comment)>:
> @@ -139,7 +141,6 @@ fun <T : Any> beEqualToUsingFields(other: T, vararg fields: KProperty<*>): Match
* Note: Throws [IllegalArgumentException] in case [properties] parameter is not provided.
*/
fun <T : Any> T.shouldBeEqualToIgnoringFields(other: T, vararg properties: KProperty<*>) {
Well, that's what has been recommend
<#1161 (comment)> to
me for me use case. From a strictly logical perspective this sounds
alright, but I agree it feels a bit unnatural.
But if neither shouldBeEqualToUsingFields nor
shouldBeEqualToIgnoringFields offer an easy way to compare *all* fields,
and preferably also with an option to compare private fields, what's the
alternative?
—
You are receiving this because your review was requested.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1413 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFVSGW56EP742DJJ4TOU4LRORVI3ANCNFSM4MRFZ2KA>
.
|
|
Or if we have to allow empty fields on one of them, I think
shouldBeEqualToUsingFields
makes more sense than the ignored one.
…On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 13:19, Stephen Samuel (Sam) ***@***.***> wrote:
What about adding shouldBeEqualToUsingAllFields ?
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 12:27, Sebastian Schuberth <
***@***.***> wrote:
> ***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
> ------------------------------
>
> In
> kotest-assertions/kotest-assertions-core/src/jvmMain/kotlin/io/kotest/matchers/equality/reflection.kt
> <#1413 (comment)>:
>
> > @@ -139,7 +141,6 @@ fun <T : Any> beEqualToUsingFields(other: T, vararg fields: KProperty<*>): Match
> * Note: Throws [IllegalArgumentException] in case [properties] parameter is not provided.
> */
> fun <T : Any> T.shouldBeEqualToIgnoringFields(other: T, vararg properties: KProperty<*>) {
>
> Well, that's what has been recommend
> <#1161 (comment)> to
> me for me use case. From a strictly logical perspective this sounds
> alright, but I agree it feels a bit unnatural.
>
> But if neither shouldBeEqualToUsingFields nor
> shouldBeEqualToIgnoringFields offer an easy way to compare *all* fields,
> and preferably also with an option to compare private fields, what's the
> alternative?
>
> —
> You are receiving this because your review was requested.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#1413 (comment)>, or
> unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFVSGW56EP742DJJ4TOU4LRORVI3ANCNFSM4MRFZ2KA>
> .
>
|
Yes, that's how I expected it to work in the first place. I'll make that change. |
So that the check is also performed when using "should beEqualTo*Fields" directly. While at it, slightly improve the check's message wording.
…gFields We are not really interersted in the concrete fields, but only if there are any.
sschuberth
force-pushed
the
reflection-equality-improvements
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ada8717
to
3cca2dd
Compare
sschuberth
force-pushed
the
reflection-equality-improvements
branch
from
3cca2dd
to
ca98c52
Compare
|
lgtm |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Please have a look at the individual commit messages for the details.