Hi, > Even if I like the way AssertJ handles exceptions a bit more than the > Hamcrest way, I never was particularly fond of never-ending fluent > expressions. So I would opt for the Hamcrest version.
No strong view either way as any tests are good to have :-) But I have used Hamcrest in the past and that’s what I’m familiar with. Niclas’ change looks good to me. Thanks, Justin