Introduce assorted Iterator and Iterable Refaster rules
#1487
+404
−122
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
Stephan202
commented
Dec 29, 2024
Comment on lines
+73
to
+89
| // XXX: In practice this rule isn't very useful, as it only matches invocations of | ||
| // `assertThat(E)`. In most cases a more specific overload of `assertThat` is invoked, in which | ||
| // case this rule won't match. Look into a more robust approach. | ||
| static final class AssertThatIterableHasOneElementEqualTo<S, E extends S> { | ||
| @BeforeTemplate | ||
| ObjectAssert<S> before(Iterable<S> iterable, E element) { | ||
| return assertThat(Iterables.getOnlyElement(iterable)).isEqualTo(element); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @AfterTemplate | ||
| @UseImportPolicy(STATIC_IMPORT_ALWAYS) | ||
| IterableAssert<S> after(Iterable<S> iterable, E element) { | ||
| return assertThat(iterable).containsExactly(element); | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Moved from AssertJRules, mostly to keep track of this caveat.
Comment on lines
-342
to
-357
| // XXX: This overload is here because `assertThat` has an overload for `Comparable` types. | ||
| // Unfortunately this still doesn't convince Refaster to match this rule in the context of | ||
| // Comparable types. Figure out why! Note that this also affects the `AssertThatOptional` rule. | ||
| static final class AssertThatIterableHasOneComparableElementEqualTo< | ||
| S extends Comparable<? super S>, T extends S> { | ||
| @BeforeTemplate | ||
| AbstractComparableAssert<?, S> before(Iterable<S> iterable, T element) { | ||
| return assertThat(Iterables.getOnlyElement(iterable)).isEqualTo(element); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @AfterTemplate | ||
| @UseImportPolicy(STATIC_IMPORT_ALWAYS) | ||
| IterableAssert<S> after(Iterable<S> iterable, T element) { | ||
| return assertThat(iterable).containsExactly(element); | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Dropped this variant, since in practice it added little.
|
Looks good. No mutations were possible for these changes. |
|
Validated that these changes do not impact the integration tests. |
rickie
approved these changes
Jan 7, 2025
Stephan202
force-pushed
the
sschroevers/assertj-iterator-and-iterable-rules
branch
from
df11d54 to
7e5c40b
Compare
|
Looks good. No mutations were possible for these changes. |
|
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.
Suggested commit message: