Comparison API in assertj module

[krystiankaluzny]

PR provide CompareAssert that is equivalent for CompareMatcher

From now xmlunit-assert module covers same features as xmlunit-matchers.
And for now I don't have a plan for further development.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.6%) to 91.338% when pulling 318130c on assertj-support into f6a8ccd on master.

[bodewig]

Great work, many thanks!

I'm not really familiar with AssertJ's philosophy but I would have expected areNotSimilar in addition to areDifferent.

Some of the new test classes lack the license header and we may want to look into test coverage later (I'm not sure Coveralls caught your follow up commit).

[krystiankaluzny]

In AssertJ there are examples of pair of methods that do same things, but have different names
So if yout think that areNotSimilar is more appropriate, I don't see any reason not to add that method.

I can also add areNotIdentical aka similar or completely different.

I notice that Coveralls have problem with try-catch blocks that look like below and it is main reason of decreasing coverage.

try {
	do()
} catch(Exception e) {
	throwMessage()
}

...
void throwMessage() {
	thorw new AssertError()
}

I have to admit that I didn't write tests for all CompareAssert's methods :)
Most of that methods delegate work to DiffBuilder, so I decide that it's pointless to write the same tests as in DiffBuilderTest. I can cover this gap if you wish.

Of course missing license headers will be added.

[bodewig]

Sorry, of course areNotSimilar and areDifferent do the same, my fault. What I really wanted to ask is for having areNotIdentical as you suggest. I really was only asking whether it would be a good idea to have two negative assertions to go with the two positive assertions.

As for coverage I really haven't checked where coveralls currently thinks we lack tests, if it is a false positive, then we'll simply have to accept it.

[bodewig]

still looks good to me :-)

Please merge the PR yourself when you consider it ready as I'm not as available as usual right now.

[bodewig]

@krystiankaluzny do you think we can close #117 now or is there anything left you'd like to add?

[krystiankaluzny]

The only thing I'm going to do is write user guide page. If you don't mind I would leave the issue open until then.

[bodewig]

Sure, fine with me. I hope to carve out some time this week and write a few additional tests - because it is my way of understanding APIs and not (only) to improve some silly stats.