assertj: AssertJ 3.27.7 lab (soft assertions, recursive comparison, custom and generated assertions)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5.5 <[email protected]> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01CifR2BE7PBvRy5hT8TS9oz
2026-10-26 01:57:10 +00:00
parent 08e063d22e
commit 9d89323864
50 changed files with 1427 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+startsWith failure:
+  Expecting actual:
+    "Hello, AssertJ"
+  to start with:
+    "Goodbye"
+isEqualTo failure:
+  expected: 43
+   but was: 42
+as(...) failure:
+  [answer to everything]
+  expected: 43
+   but was: 42
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+assertThat(1);                -> threw: nothing
+assertThat("any value");     -> threw: nothing
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+BigDecimal 2.00 isEqualTo 2.0:
+  expected: 2.0
+   but was: 2.00
+double 0.1+0.2 isEqualTo 0.3:
+  expected: 0.3
+   but was: 0.30000000000000004
+0.1 + 0.2 = 0.30000000000000004
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Optional.empty() isPresent:
+  Expecting Optional to contain a value but it was empty.
+null String startsWith:
+  Expecting actual not to be null
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+containsExactly, wrong order:
+  Expecting actual:
+    ["BOOK-1", "PEN-7", "BAG-3"]
+  to contain exactly (and in same order):
+    ["PEN-7", "BOOK-1", "BAG-3"]
+  but there were differences at these indexes:
+    - element at index 0: expected "PEN-7" but was "BOOK-1"
+    - element at index 1: expected "BOOK-1" but was "PEN-7"
+containsExactlyInAnyOrder, one missing and one unexpected:
+  Expecting actual:
+    ["BOOK-1", "PEN-7", "BAG-3"]
+  to contain exactly in any order:
+    ["BOOK-1", "PEN-7", "HAT-9"]
+  elements not found:
+    ["HAT-9"]
+  and elements not expected:
+    ["BAG-3"]
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+extracting(sku, quantity) with one wrong quantity:
+  Expecting actual:
+    [("BOOK-1", 2), ("PEN-7", 10), ("BAG-3", 1)]
+  to contain exactly (and in same order):
+    [("BOOK-1", 2), ("PEN-7", 11), ("BAG-3", 1)]
+  but some elements were not found:
+    [("PEN-7", 11)]
+  and others were not expected:
+    [("PEN-7", 10)]
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+allSatisfy, one element violates the rule: (stack frames omitted)
+  Expecting all elements of:
+    [OrderLine[sku=BOOK-1, quantity=2, unitPrice=12.50],
+      OrderLine[sku=PEN-7, quantity=10, unitPrice=1.20],
+      OrderLine[sku=BAG-3, quantity=1, unitPrice=40.00]]
+  to satisfy given requirements, but these elements did not:
+  
+  OrderLine[sku=PEN-7, quantity=10, unitPrice=1.20]
+  error: java.lang.AssertionError: [quantity of PEN-7]
+  Expecting actual:
+    10
+  to be less than:
+    5
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+containsEntry with wrong value:
+  Expecting map:
+    {"BOOK-1"=4, "PEN-7"=0}
+  to contain entries:
+    ["PEN-7"=5]
+  but the following map entries had different values:
+    ["PEN-7"=0 (expected: 5)]
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+expected exception, nothing thrown: (stack frames omitted)
+  Expecting code to raise a throwable.
+wrong message: (stack frames omitted)
+  Expecting message to be:
+    "payment failed"
+  but was:
+    "payment failed for order o-45"
+  
+  Throwable that failed the check:
+  
+  lab.assertj.custom.CheckoutException: payment failed for order o-45
+  Caused by: java.lang.IllegalStateException: gateway unavailable
+  Caused by: java.io.IOException: connection reset by gateway
+wrong type: (stack frames omitted)
+  Expecting actual throwable to be an instance of:
+    java.lang.IllegalStateException
+  but was:
+    lab.assertj.custom.CheckoutException: payment failed for order o-45
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+three wrong expectations, hard assertions:
+  expected: "o-1"
+   but was: "o-9"
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+exception type: org.assertj.core.error.AssertJMultipleFailuresError
+message:
+  Multiple Failures (3 failures)
+  -- failure 1 --
+  expected: "o-1"
+   but was: "o-9"
+  at SoftAssertionsTest.lambda$assertSoftlyReportsAll$1(SoftAssertionsTest.java:48)
+  -- failure 2 --
+  expected: PAID
+   but was: NEW
+  at SoftAssertionsTest.lambda$assertSoftlyReportsAll$1(SoftAssertionsTest.java:49)
+  -- failure 3 --
+  expected: 75
+   but was: 99.00
+  at SoftAssertionsTest.lambda$assertSoftlyReportsAll$1(SoftAssertionsTest.java:50)
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+errors collected but not thrown: 2
+assertAll() throws: org.assertj.core.error.AssertJMultipleFailuresError
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+thrown: java.lang.NullPointerException
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+two Customers with identical fields, isEqualTo:
+  expected: "Customer{id=7, name=Asha Patil, [email protected], address=Address[street=12 MG Road, city=Pune, postcode=411001], tags=[vip, newsletter], creditLimit=5000.00} (Customer@73c3cd09)"
+   but was: "Customer{id=7, name=Asha Patil, [email protected], address=Address[street=12 MG Road, city=Pune, postcode=411001], tags=[vip, newsletter], creditLimit=5000.00} (Customer@74f827ad)"
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+DTO vs entity with withStrictTypeChecking():
+  Expecting actual:
+    CustomerDto[id=7, name=Asha Patil, [email protected], address=Address[street=12 MG Road, city=Pune, postcode=411001], tags=[vip, newsletter], createdAt=2026-10-01T10:00:00Z, creditLimit=5000.00]
+  to be equal to:
+    Customer{id=7, name=Asha Patil, [email protected], address=Address[street=12 MG Road, city=Pune, postcode=411001], tags=[vip, newsletter], creditLimit=5000.00}
+  when recursively comparing field by field, but found the following difference:
+  
+  Top level actual and expected objects differ:
+  - actual value  : CustomerDto[id=7, name=Asha Patil, [email protected], address=Address[street=12 MG Road, city=Pune, postcode=411001], tags=[vip, newsletter], createdAt=2026-10-01T10:00:00Z, creditLimit=5000.00]
+  - expected value: Customer{id=7, name=Asha Patil, [email protected], address=Address[street=12 MG Road, city=Pune, postcode=411001], tags=[vip, newsletter], creditLimit=5000.00}
+  actual and expected are considered different since the comparison enforces strict type check and expected type lab.assertj.domain.Customer is not a subtype of actual type lab.assertj.domain.CustomerDto
+  
+  The recursive comparison was performed with this configuration:
+  - no equals methods were used in the comparison EXCEPT for java JDK types since introspecting JDK types is forbidden in java 17+ (use withEqualsForType to register a specific way to compare a JDK type if you need it)
+  - these types were compared with the following comparators:
+    - java.lang.Double -> DoubleComparator[precision=1.0E-15]
+    - java.lang.Float -> FloatComparator[precision=1.0E-6]
+    - java.nio.file.Path -> lexicographic comparator (Path natural order)
+  - actual and expected objects and their fields were considered different when of incompatible types (i.e. expected type does not extend actual's type) even if all their fields match, for example a Person instance will never match a PersonDto (call strictTypeChecking(false) to change that behavior).
+  - the introspection strategy used was: DefaultRecursiveComparisonIntrospectionStrategy
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+recursive comparison, four fields differ:
+  Expecting actual:
+    Customer{id=7, name=Asha Patil, [email protected], address=Address[street=12 MG Road, city=Mumbai, postcode=411001], tags=[vip], creditLimit=5000.0}
+  to be equal to:
+    Customer{id=7, name=Asha Patil, [email protected], address=Address[street=12 MG Road, city=Pune, postcode=411001], tags=[vip, newsletter], creditLimit=5000.00}
+  when recursively comparing field by field, but found the following 4 differences:
+  
+  field/property 'address.city' differ:
+  - actual value  : "Mumbai"
+  - expected value: "Pune"
+  Compared objects have java types and were thus compared with equals method
+  
+  field/property 'creditLimit' differ:
+  - actual value  : 5000.0
+  - expected value: 5000.00
+  Compared objects have java types and were thus compared with equals method
+  
+  field/property 'email' differ:
+  - actual value  : "[email protected]"
+  - expected value: "[email protected]"
+  Compared objects have java types and were thus compared with equals method
+  
+  field/property 'tags' differ:
+  - actual value  : ["vip"]
+  - expected value: ["vip", "newsletter"]
+  actual and expected values are collections of different size, actual size=1 when expected size=2
+  
+  The recursive comparison was performed with this configuration:
+  - no equals methods were used in the comparison EXCEPT for java JDK types since introspecting JDK types is forbidden in java 17+ (use withEqualsForType to register a specific way to compare a JDK type if you need it)
+  - these types were compared with the following comparators:
+    - java.lang.Double -> DoubleComparator[precision=1.0E-15]
+    - java.lang.Float -> FloatComparator[precision=1.0E-6]
+    - java.nio.file.Path -> lexicographic comparator (Path natural order)
+  - actual and expected objects and their fields were compared field by field recursively even if they were not of the same type, this allows for example to compare a Person to a PersonDto (call strictTypeChecking(true) to change that behavior).
+  - the introspection strategy used was: DefaultRecursiveComparisonIntrospectionStrategy
@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+no knobs:
+  Expecting actual:
+    Customer{id=99, name=Asha Patil, [email protected], address=Address[street=12 MG Road, city=Pune, postcode=411001], tags=[newsletter, vip], creditLimit=5000.0}
+  to be equal to:
+    Customer{id=7, name=Asha Patil, [email protected], address=Address[street=12 MG Road, city=Pune, postcode=411001], tags=[vip, newsletter], creditLimit=5000.00}
+  when recursively comparing field by field, but found the following 5 differences:
+  
+  field/property 'createdAt' differ:
+  - actual value  : 2026-10-26T01:00:00Z
+  - expected value: 2026-10-01T10:00:00Z
+  Compared objects have java types and were thus compared with equals method
+  
+  field/property 'creditLimit' differ:
+  - actual value  : 5000.0
+  - expected value: 5000.00
+  Compared objects have java types and were thus compared with equals method
+  
+  field/property 'id' differ:
+  - actual value  : 99L
+  - expected value: 7L
+  Compared objects have java types and were thus compared with equals method
+  
+  field/property 'tags[0]' differ:
+  - actual value  : "newsletter"
+  - expected value: "vip"
+  Compared objects have java types and were thus compared with equals method
+  
+  field/property 'tags[1]' differ:
+  - actual value  : "vip"
+  - expected value: "newsletter"
+  Compared objects have java types and were thus compared with equals method
+  
+  The recursive comparison was performed with this configuration:
+  - no equals methods were used in the comparison EXCEPT for java JDK types since introspecting JDK types is forbidden in java 17+ (use withEqualsForType to register a specific way to compare a JDK type if you need it)
+  - these types were compared with the following comparators:
+    - java.lang.Double -> DoubleComparator[precision=1.0E-15]
+    - java.lang.Float -> FloatComparator[precision=1.0E-6]
+    - java.nio.file.Path -> lexicographic comparator (Path natural order)
+  - actual and expected objects and their fields were compared field by field recursively even if they were not of the same type, this allows for example to compare a Person to a PersonDto (call strictTypeChecking(true) to change that behavior).
+  - the introspection strategy used was: DefaultRecursiveComparisonIntrospectionStrategy
+everything but ignoringCollectionOrder():
+  Expecting actual:
+    Customer{id=99, name=Asha Patil, [email protected], address=Address[street=12 MG Road, city=Pune, postcode=411001], tags=[newsletter, vip], creditLimit=5000.0}
+  to be equal to:
+    Customer{id=7, name=Asha Patil, [email protected], address=Address[street=12 MG Road, city=Pune, postcode=411001], tags=[vip, newsletter], creditLimit=5000.00}
+  when recursively comparing field by field, but found the following 2 differences:
+  
+  field/property 'tags[0]' differ:
+  - actual value  : "newsletter"
+  - expected value: "vip"
+  Compared objects have java types and were thus compared with equals method
+  
+  field/property 'tags[1]' differ:
+  - actual value  : "vip"
+  - expected value: "newsletter"
+  Compared objects have java types and were thus compared with equals method
+  
+  The recursive comparison was performed with this configuration:
+  - the following fields were ignored in the comparison: id, createdAt
+  - no equals methods were used in the comparison EXCEPT for java JDK types since introspecting JDK types is forbidden in java 17+ (use withEqualsForType to register a specific way to compare a JDK type if you need it)
+  - these types were compared with the following comparators:
+    - java.lang.Double -> DoubleComparator[precision=1.0E-15]
+    - java.lang.Float -> FloatComparator[precision=1.0E-6]
+    - java.math.BigDecimal -> BigDecimal compared with compareTo (scale ignored)
+    - java.nio.file.Path -> lexicographic comparator (Path natural order)
+  - actual and expected objects and their fields were compared field by field recursively even if they were not of the same type, this allows for example to compare a Person to a PersonDto (call strictTypeChecking(true) to change that behavior).
+  - the introspection strategy used was: DefaultRecursiveComparisonIntrospectionStrategy
+everything but the BigDecimal comparator:
+  Expecting actual:
+    Customer{id=99, name=Asha Patil, [email protected], address=Address[street=12 MG Road, city=Pune, postcode=411001], tags=[newsletter, vip], creditLimit=5000.0}
+  to be equal to:
+    Customer{id=7, name=Asha Patil, [email protected], address=Address[street=12 MG Road, city=Pune, postcode=411001], tags=[vip, newsletter], creditLimit=5000.00}
+  when recursively comparing field by field, but found the following difference:
+  
+  field/property 'creditLimit' differ:
+  - actual value  : 5000.0
+  - expected value: 5000.00
+  Compared objects have java types and were thus compared with equals method
+  
+  The recursive comparison was performed with this configuration:
+  - the following fields were ignored in the comparison: id, createdAt
+  - no equals methods were used in the comparison EXCEPT for java JDK types since introspecting JDK types is forbidden in java 17+ (use withEqualsForType to register a specific way to compare a JDK type if you need it)
+  - collection order was ignored in all fields in the comparison
+  - these types were compared with the following comparators:
+    - java.lang.Double -> DoubleComparator[precision=1.0E-15]
+    - java.lang.Float -> FloatComparator[precision=1.0E-6]
+    - java.nio.file.Path -> lexicographic comparator (Path natural order)
+  - actual and expected objects and their fields were compared field by field recursively even if they were not of the same type, this allows for example to compare a Person to a PersonDto (call strictTypeChecking(true) to change that behavior).
+  - the introspection strategy used was: DefaultRecursiveComparisonIntrospectionStrategy
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+hasNumber, wrong:
+  Expected invoice number to be <INV-2026-002> but was <INV-2026-001>
+isArithmeticallyConsistent, wrong:
+  Expected gross <118.00> (net 100.00 + tax 18.00) but declared gross was <120>
+as("billing currency").isIn("USD"):
+  [billing currency]
+  expected: "USD"
+   but was: "INR"
+null actual:
+  Expecting actual not to be null
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+allOf(upperCase, shortWord) on "Abcdef":
+  Expecting actual:
+    "Abcdef"
+  to be:
+  [✗] all of:[
+     [✗] upper case,
+     [✗] at most 4 characters
+  ]
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+hasStatus(SHIPPED):
+  Expecting status of:
+    <Order{id=o-1, status=PAID, total=75.00}>
+  to be:
+    <SHIPPED>
+  but was:
+    <PAID>
+isNotPaid():
+  Expecting that actual Order is not paid but is.
+hasTotal(new BigDecimal("75")) against 75.00:
+  Expecting total of:
+    <Order{id=o-1, status=PAID, total=75.00}>
+  to be:
+    <75>
+  but was:
+    <75.00>
+null actual:
+  Expecting actual not to be null
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+generated SoftAssertions, one failing hasStatus:
+  Multiple Failures (1 failure)
+  -- failure 1 --
+  Expecting status of:
+    <Order{id=o-1, status=PAID, total=75.00}>
+  to be:
+    <SHIPPED>
+  but was:
+    <PAID>
+  at GeneratedAssertionsTest.generatedSoftAssertionsEntryPoint(GeneratedAssertionsTest.java:48)
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+# files generated into target/generated-test-sources/assertj-assertions/
+lab/assertj/domain/AbstractAddressAssert.java
+lab/assertj/domain/AbstractCustomerAssert.java
+lab/assertj/domain/AbstractCustomerDtoAssert.java
+lab/assertj/domain/AbstractOrderAssert.java
+lab/assertj/domain/AbstractOrderLineAssert.java
+lab/assertj/domain/AbstractOrderStatusAssert.java
+lab/assertj/domain/AddressAssert.java
+lab/assertj/domain/CustomerAssert.java
+lab/assertj/domain/CustomerDtoAssert.java
+lab/assertj/domain/OrderAssert.java
+lab/assertj/domain/OrderLineAssert.java
+lab/assertj/domain/OrderStatusAssert.java
+lab/assertj/generated/Assertions.java
+lab/assertj/generated/BddAssertions.java
+lab/assertj/generated/SoftAssertions.java
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+# AbstractOrderAssert.java: annotation line, class declaration and the isPaid() method, verbatim
+@javax.annotation.Generated(value="assertj-assertions-generator")
+public abstract class AbstractOrderAssert<S extends AbstractOrderAssert<S, A>, A extends Order> extends AbstractObjectAssert<S, A> {
+  public S isPaid() {
+    // check that actual Order we want to make assertions on is not null.
+    isNotNull();
+
+    // check that property call/field access is true
+    if (!actual.isPaid()) {
+      failWithMessage("\nExpecting that actual Order is paid but is not.");
+    }
+
+    // return the current assertion for method chaining
+    return myself;
+  }
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+target/generated-test-sources/assertj-assertions/lab/assertj/domain/AbstractAddressAssert.java:[8,18] package javax.annotation does not exist
+target/generated-test-sources/assertj-assertions/lab/assertj/domain/AbstractCustomerAssert.java:[10,18] package javax.annotation does not exist
+target/generated-test-sources/assertj-assertions/lab/assertj/domain/AbstractCustomerDtoAssert.java:[8,18] package javax.annotation does not exist
+target/generated-test-sources/assertj-assertions/lab/assertj/domain/AbstractOrderAssert.java:[10,18] package javax.annotation does not exist
+target/generated-test-sources/assertj-assertions/lab/assertj/domain/AbstractOrderLineAssert.java:[8,18] package javax.annotation does not exist
+target/generated-test-sources/assertj-assertions/lab/assertj/domain/AbstractOrderStatusAssert.java:[8,18] package javax.annotation does not exist
+target/generated-test-sources/assertj-assertions/lab/assertj/domain/AddressAssert.java:[9,18] package javax.annotation does not exist
+target/generated-test-sources/assertj-assertions/lab/assertj/domain/CustomerAssert.java:[9,18] package javax.annotation does not exist
+target/generated-test-sources/assertj-assertions/lab/assertj/domain/CustomerDtoAssert.java:[9,18] package javax.annotation does not exist
+target/generated-test-sources/assertj-assertions/lab/assertj/domain/OrderAssert.java:[9,18] package javax.annotation does not exist
+target/generated-test-sources/assertj-assertions/lab/assertj/domain/OrderLineAssert.java:[9,18] package javax.annotation does not exist
+target/generated-test-sources/assertj-assertions/lab/assertj/domain/OrderStatusAssert.java:[9,18] package javax.annotation does not exist
+target/generated-test-sources/assertj-assertions/lab/assertj/generated/Assertions.java:[7,18] package javax.annotation does not exist
+target/generated-test-sources/assertj-assertions/lab/assertj/generated/BddAssertions.java:[6,18] package javax.annotation does not exist
+target/generated-test-sources/assertj-assertions/lab/assertj/generated/SoftAssertions.java:[6,18] package javax.annotation does not exist
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+assertj-core 4.0.0-M1 (milestone), same sources:
+Tests run: 27, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
+transcripts whose text differs from the 3.27.7 run (excluding the generator captures):
+  (end of list; identity hashes like Customer@73c3cd09 are ignored in the comparison)