-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 96
Composed existing JUnit5 assertion cleanup recipes into a well-ordere… #232
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Composed existing JUnit5 assertion cleanup recipes into a well-ordere… #232
Conversation
…d parent recipe, and adjusted JUnit5BestPractices to use that new recipe instead of a small subset
tkvangorder
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems reasonable to me
|
Investigating the test failures -- some look clearly related to my change (will review), but I can actually replicate some of these failures on the Any insights? |
|
Hi Nick, I will try to grab some time today to look at this. I am having to context switch a lot today. 8) |
Solidarity -- it doesn't have to be today if it's just for my benefit :) |
|
@tkvangorder - FYI, I did resolve the test failure associated with my changes (some existing code was vulnerable to class cast exceptions). The CI build looks to only be failing with that JavaParser issue described above now, which I think is unrelated. |
|
Sorry, it took a bit to get to this PR! A lot going on the last couple of weeks |
No worries - thanks! |
…d parent recipe, and adjusted JUnit5BestPractices to use that new recipe instead of a small subset