Re: [Junit-devel] reintroduction of assertion variants for primitive types?

[David S. <sa...@mi...>]

Yanic,

It's a point well-taken.  We'll discuss it for 4.2.  In the meantime, do 
any compilers support @SuppressWarnings("autobox") or something like 
that?  If so, you could create your own Assert class with the desired 
methods.

    David Saff

Yanic Inghelbrecht wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> re: org.junit.Assert.java      (rev 1.1.2.7, "Version4" branch, 
> "NewYears2006" tag)
>
> In this commit (by kbeck) the decision was made to remove all 
> 'superfluous' assertEquals variants for primitive types from 
> org.junit.Assert and rely on auto-boxing and the Object-based variant 
> instead.
>
> Have you taken into consideration that some programmers are not that 
> keen (yet?) on auto-boxing and have their compiler set to report 
> warnings/errors when auto-boxing is detected?
>
> To circumvent such warnings/errors in their testcode, these 
> programmers have to forsake assertEquals and use assertTrue (which is 
> not as legible, neither in testcode nor in testrunner output). IMHO 
> the framework shouldn't force the use of auto-boxing on its users. 
> Auto-boxing can easily be avoided by providing variants for each 
> primitive type (as it was before), at no cost and without breaking 
> existing code.
>
> Any chance on a reintroduction of these assertEquals (and related) 
> variants for primitive types?
>
> Best regards,
> Yanic
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
> Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat 
> certifications in
> the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=107521&bid=248729&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> Junit-devel mailing list
> Jun...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/junit-devel