GH-70: Move from hamcrest to assertj in flight-sql - #772
Conversation
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment has been minimized.
| containsString("SQL"), // pk_key_name | ||
| is("3"), // update_rule | ||
| is("3")); // delete_rule | ||
| new HamcrestCondition<>(nullValue(String.class)), // pk_catalog_name |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not particularly certain how to get rid of Hamcrest entirely here. I was aware of HamcrestCondition so using that, but open to suggestions if anyone knows how this list-based matching can be accomplished solely using assertj.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using a list of lambdas?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Entirely overlooked that assertj provides lambda based conditions. Changed. Thanks.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
I've formatted my changes using mvn spotless:apply. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
lidavidm
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for doing this!
Sorry, something went wrong.
| final FlightInfo info = sqlClient.getTables(null, null, null, null, true); | ||
| MatcherAssert.assertThat( | ||
| info.getSchemaOptional(), is(Optional.of(FlightSqlProducer.Schemas.GET_TABLES_SCHEMA))); | ||
| Assertions.assertThat(info.getSchemaOptional()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit, but IMO it's OK to statically import assertThat.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| containsString("SQL"), // pk_key_name | ||
| is("3"), // update_rule | ||
| is("3")); // delete_rule | ||
| new HamcrestCondition<>(nullValue(String.class)), // pk_catalog_name |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using a list of lambdas?
Sorry, something went wrong.
lidavidm
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks!
Sorry, something went wrong.
What's Changed
Series of PRs to consolidate on using assertj in tests as part of #70.