[英]The “is” in JUnit 4 assertions
Is there any semantic difference between writing 写作之间有什么语义上的区别
assertThat(object1, is(equalTo(object2)));
and writing 和写作
assertThat(object1, equalTo(object2)));
? ? If not, I would prefer the first version, because it reads better.
如果没有,我更喜欢第一个版本,因为它读起来更好。 Are there any other considerations here?
这里还有其他考虑事项吗?
Documentation says it all: 文档说明了一切:
Decorates another Matcher, retaining the behavior but allowing tests to be slightly more expressive. 装饰另一个Matcher,保留其行为,但允许测试更具表现力。
eg. 例如。 assertThat(cheese, equalTo(smelly))
assertThat(奶酪,equalTo(臭))
vs assertThat(cheese, is(equalTo(smelly))) vs assertThat(奶酪,is(equalTo(臭)))
http://www.junit.org/apidocs/org/hamcrest/core/Is.html http://www.junit.org/apidocs/org/hamcrest/core/Is.html
In other words, you're on the right track. 换句话说,您走在正确的轨道上。
They are equivalent, as far as I'm aware. 据我所知,它们是等效的。 The "
Is
" matcher just passes through to the contained matcher. “
Is
”匹配器只是传递到所包含的匹配器。 It seems it's there to add readability, and perhaps backwards compatibility. 似乎可以增加可读性,甚至可以向后兼容。
声明:本站的技术帖子网页,遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议,如果您需要转载,请注明本站网址或者原文地址。任何问题请咨询:yoyou2525@163.com.