You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I've found code easier to read and more functional when moving from assertEquals to the Hamcrest matchers. However, I've found it a pain have to make sure the types of primatives are the same given the matchers require Objects.
I've written a small matcher I've called IsNumberEquiv with a static check called equivTo which passes if values are numerically the same.
I've written a reasonable initial set of tests and covered the standard implementations of Number. Happy to contribute this as appropriate e.g. patch or commit, if there's interest.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I've found code easier to read and more functional when moving from assertEquals to the Hamcrest matchers. However, I've found it a pain have to make sure the types of primatives are the same given the matchers require Objects.
I've written a small matcher I've called IsNumberEquiv with a static check called equivTo which passes if values are numerically the same.
I've written a reasonable initial set of tests and covered the standard implementations of Number. Happy to contribute this as appropriate e.g. patch or commit, if there's interest.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: