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

Create xmlunit-assertj module #120

Merged
merged 11 commits into from May 14, 2018

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@krystiankaluzny
Member

krystiankaluzny commented May 13, 2018

For now assertj module provide similar functionality as HasXPathMatcher.
I hope that other features will be available soon.

@coveralls

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@coveralls

coveralls May 13, 2018

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.05%) to 91.742% when pulling f3e1d47 on krystiankaluzny:master into c9a4571 on xmlunit:master.

coveralls commented May 13, 2018

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.05%) to 91.742% when pulling f3e1d47 on krystiankaluzny:master into c9a4571 on xmlunit:master.

@bodewig

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bodewig

bodewig May 13, 2018

Member

Many many thanks, I'll need some time to digest this :-)

Member

bodewig commented May 13, 2018

Many many thanks, I'll need some time to digest this :-)

@PascalSchumacher

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@PascalSchumacher

PascalSchumacher May 13, 2018

Contributor

Great! 👍 I am looking forward to using this!

I think it would be a good idea to rename the 'negative' assertions methods so that they are closer to the AssertJ naming schema: (e.g. hasNotXPath -> doesNotHaveXPath, notExists -> doesNotExist so they read similar to AssertJ Core assertions like doesNotContain, doesNotMatch...). What do you think?

A nitpick: Replace \n with %n in error messages to make them platform independent.

Contributor

PascalSchumacher commented May 13, 2018

Great! 👍 I am looking forward to using this!

I think it would be a good idea to rename the 'negative' assertions methods so that they are closer to the AssertJ naming schema: (e.g. hasNotXPath -> doesNotHaveXPath, notExists -> doesNotExist so they read similar to AssertJ Core assertions like doesNotContain, doesNotMatch...). What do you think?

A nitpick: Replace \n with %n in error messages to make them platform independent.

@bodewig

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bodewig

bodewig May 14, 2018

Member

I wonder whether we'd want to put the module into a profile that is triggered if Java is not Java6 in order to avoid the Travis CI problem. So far I haven't seen a reason to drop Java6 support for Core but wouldn't see any problem with the assertj module requiring even Java8 instead. I've been cutting releases using Java8 anyway.

You may want to override the compiler properties in the module's POM if you want to use Java7+ features.

Member

bodewig commented May 14, 2018

I wonder whether we'd want to put the module into a profile that is triggered if Java is not Java6 in order to avoid the Travis CI problem. So far I haven't seen a reason to drop Java6 support for Core but wouldn't see any problem with the assertj module requiring even Java8 instead. I've been cutting releases using Java8 anyway.

You may want to override the compiler properties in the module's POM if you want to use Java7+ features.

@bodewig

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bodewig

bodewig May 14, 2018

Member

@krystiankaluzny if you are fine with 3a76af0 I'll happily merge that branch (or you push it here and I merge the PR)

Member

bodewig commented May 14, 2018

@krystiankaluzny if you are fine with 3a76af0 I'll happily merge that branch (or you push it here and I merge the PR)

@krystiankaluzny

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@krystiankaluzny

krystiankaluzny May 14, 2018

Member

@bodewig I think it's fine, you can merge the PR

Member

krystiankaluzny commented May 14, 2018

@bodewig I think it's fine, you can merge the PR

@bodewig bodewig merged commit f3e1d47 into xmlunit:master May 14, 2018

1 of 2 checks passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build failed
Details
coverage/coveralls Coverage increased (+0.05%) to 91.742%
Details
@bodewig

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bodewig

bodewig May 14, 2018

Member

Thanks, merged. I'l tweak a few things later like adding license headers, adding to the release notes and so on. Also I now realized the openjdk6 build has been broken since I switched xmlunit.org to https so the error wasn't related to the PR at all - something I need to look into separately. Many thanks again!

It would be nice if you (or anybody else more familiar with AssertJ than myself) could add an example to the README and maybe even add a page to the user guide.

Member

bodewig commented May 14, 2018

Thanks, merged. I'l tweak a few things later like adding license headers, adding to the release notes and so on. Also I now realized the openjdk6 build has been broken since I switched xmlunit.org to https so the error wasn't related to the PR at all - something I need to look into separately. Many thanks again!

It would be nice if you (or anybody else more familiar with AssertJ than myself) could add an example to the README and maybe even add a page to the user guide.

bodewig added a commit that referenced this pull request May 14, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment