[WIP] Transitioning from JUnit to AssertJ Assertions #109
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Coding agent has begun work on Transitioning from JUnit to AssertJ Assertions and will replace this description as work progresses.
See problem context
TITLE: Transitioning from JUnit to AssertJ Assertions
USER INTENT: The user wants to convert all JUnit assertions in their codebase to AssertJ assertions.
TASK DESCRIPTION: The main goal is to replace existing JUnit assertions with AssertJ assertions to enhance the readability and expressiveness of the tests.
EXISTING: The user has initiated a pull request for this task, indicating that some work has already been done.
PENDING: The user has requested the implementation of the changes to convert all assertions, but specific details on the files or lines to be modified have not been provided.
CODE STATE: The conversation does not include specific file paths or code snippets, but it implies that there is a pull request related to the changes.
RELEVANT CODE/DOCUMENTATION SNIPPETS: No specific code snippets were provided in the conversation.
OTHER NOTES: The user has clearly indicated their intent to proceed with the implementation of the assertion changes.