Set up utility assertions for Hartshorn types #1157
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
GuusLieben
force-pushed
the
feature/assertions
branch
3 times, most recently
from
cd86eb3 to
a772ce7
Compare
GuusLieben
force-pushed
the
feature/assertions
branch
from
a772ce7 to
b507682
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Type of Change
Description
With the recent migration to AssertJ, we can now add more fluent support for custom assertions. As such, this PR adds initial custom assertions for
Optioninstances. Going forward, we can opt to add additional assertions when needed.Checklist
developbranch