> On Aug 8, 2016, at 10:40 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> wrote: > > Le 8/08/2016 à 16:22, Gilles a écrit : > >> There are pro and contra; IMO, saving a few characters is not worth >> wondering upon reading whether "assertEquals" is from (JUnit) "Assert" >> or Commons Math "TestUtils". > > Seriously, there is little doubt that "assertEquals" comes from JUnit in > a FooTest class. Everybody is used to that.
Emmanuel has a point here that generally when one comes across “assertEquals(…);” in an arbitrary test class, one concludes that it stems from JUnit. If we were going to indeed require assertEquals to be sufficiently generalized, then might we consider creating a class “org.apache.commons.math*.Assert” that extends JUnit’s Assert so that we can simply have one yet retain our math specific generalizations for assertions? It feels like in doing this we could reasonably cover both sides of the argument. Thoughts? -Rob > > >> When people get accustomed to git, they won't see it as a constraint, >> rather as second nature. > > I'm accustomed to Git and I see this as a constraint that I don't have > the time to deal with. > > Emmanuel Bourg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
