+1.
AssertJ or Hamcrest provide more helpful error messages.
I would not consider it mandatory to use it, but it's a good option to have it.
I'm happy that we leave the option to use raw JUnit assertions or AssertJ.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 at 16:39, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> When failing, AssertJ provides more detailed failure message and
> usually avoid having to debug / modify the test to see what's actually
> wrong.
> And while I agree we should try to keep the number of dependencies as
> low as possible, this point is much more important for runtime than
> test time.
>
> So +1 for AspectJ.
>
> Le lun. 21 juil. 2025 à 08:04, Slawomir Jaranowski
> <s.jaranow...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > For me AssertJ is more powerful than standard JUnit Assertions.
> > Assertions with AssertJ are also very good readable for me in code.
> >
> > So as it is a test dependency I don't have any problem using it.
> > Project is very well maintained and has an acceptable license.
> >
> > One thing I would like to see is do not mix assertions framework in
> > one test class - when we use AssertJ use it everywhere in one test
> > class.
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 at 06:51, Giovanni van der Schelde
> > <gvdsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > In a recent PR review, the use of AssertJ assertions was raised as a point
> > > of discussion.
> > > To avoid recurring debates and ensure the PR is reviewed for the changes
> > > it provides, I’d like to propose that we clarify the goal regarding this,
> > > and perhaps other, dependencies.
> > >
> > > Specifically, should we:
> > >
> > > - Remove the AssertJ dependency entirely to prevent its use?
> > > - State that we support the dependency and accept its use in our tests?
> > >
> > > Having a clear stance on this would help streamline code reviews and avoid
> > > repeated discussions on future PRs.
> > >
> > > Perhaps there are already some guidelines on this which I'm unaware of, so
> > > I'm looking forward to your input.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Giovanni van der Schelde
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sławomir Jaranowski
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Reply via email to