There are no receivers for the messages because they're functional rather than OO. When it comes to unit tests, though, I feel that remaining strictly OO makes them awkward.
On 5 January 2014 08:34, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > I've not been a Hamcrest fan. It feels to much like a DL that makes for > funky looking tests. In general I do not like static imports for > non-constants because it is not OO, You cannot tell who the receiver of a > message is. > > Gary > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Ralph Goers > Date:01/05/2014 04:49 (GMT-05:00) > To: Log4J Developers List > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Question/suggestion regarding use of assertions in unit > tests. > > The tests weren't migrated from junit 3, although I spent many years > working with it. Frankly, until I saw your patch today I was unaware of > directly using Hamcrest. Since junit uses it I really have no problem if we > do if it makes the tests more readable. > > Ralph > > On Jan 5, 2014, at 12:38 AM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, newcomer here. I'm wondering what your opinions are on using > Hamcrest matchers in unit tests. That is, using the assertThat() methods > and the matchers that go with it. It makes many otherwise hard to read > assertions far more literate, plus it provides some nice error messages > explaining why an assertion failed (unlike the native assert keyword and > certain related methods in org.junit.Assert). > > I don't know if the tests were migrated from JUnit 3 or anything, but I do > believe it's the preferred way of asserting things in JUnit. > > And before anyone says something like "patches welcome", I'd be glad to > help update unit tests for such a thing. :) > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
