TIM Group Matchers

A collection of hamcrest matchers developed at TIM Group.

Contains

The mismatch description for Matchers.hasItem("a") is not especially readable:

EXPECTED: a collection containing "a"
BUT: was "b", was "c", was "d"

Contains.theItem("a") lists out the non-matching items, together with their indices, and the complete iterable:

EXPECTED: a collection containing "a"
BUT:
    <1> was "b"
    <2> was "c"
    <3> was "d"
Complete actual iterable: <[b, c, d]>

Contains.theItems() checks for the presence of more than one item, ignoring non-matching items.

Contains.inOrder() checks for a complete list of items, in the order given; Contains.inAnyOrder() checks for a complete list in any order (use this when matching against unordered collections such as Set).

Generics issues

The Contains family of matchers are less generous than the hamcrest collection matchers in their generic wildcarding. This is to avoid a common situation where the Eclipse Java compiler would accept an expression that the standard javac compiler would reject with a type error.

Here's a scenario illustrating the trade-off:

public class TestGenerics {

    public static class MySuperClass { }
    public static class MySubClass extends MySuperClass { }
    
    @Test public void
    will_not_compile() {
        MySuperClass superHans = new MySuperClass();
        MySubClass subHans = new MySubClass();
        
        List<MySuperClass> mySuperList = Lists.newArrayList(superHans, subHans);
        Matcher<? super MySuperClass> isSuperHans = Matchers.equalTo(superHans);
        
        assertThat(mySuperList, Contains.theItem(superHans)); // OK
        assertThat(mySuperList, Contains.theItem(subHans)); // Does not compile
        assertThat(mySuperList, Matchers.hasItem(subHans)); // OK
        assertThat(mySuperList, Matchers.hasItem(isSuperHans)); // Compiles in Eclipse, but not javac
        assertThat(mySuperList, Contains.theItem(isSuperHans)); // Does not compile
    }
}

By using stricter generics, Contains loses the ability to check for an instance of MySubClass in an Iterable<MySuperClass>, but also loses the ability to introduce a type error that will go undetected by Eclipse's more generics-savvy compiler. We've found the latter annoyance to be more severe than the former; YMMV.

AnIterable

AnIterable is Matchers.instanceOf(klass) for collections, with a little sugar:

    Collection<Object> aCollectionOfFineMusicians = newArrayList();
    aCollectionOfFineMusicians.put("Lee");
    aCollectionOfFineMusicians.put("Lifeson");
    aCollectionOfFineMusicians.put("Peart");

    assertThat(aCollectionOfFineMusicians, AnIterable.of(String.class).which(Contains.inAnyOrder("Peart", "Lee", "Lifeson")));
    assertThat(aCollectionOfFineMusicians, AnIterable.of(String.class).inAscendingOrder());
    assertThat(aCollectionOfFineMusicians, AnIterable.of(String.class).withoutDuplicates());

    aCollectionOfFineMusicians.clear();

    assertThat(aCollectionOfFineMusicians, AnIterable.of(String.class).withoutContents());

Coercible, Mappable, Reducible, Sorted

It's sometimes useful to be able to match against a transformed value, rather than against the value directly.

For example, given a collection of Employees and a Function<Employee, String> that returns each employee's name, we can say:

    assertThat(allEmployees.get(1), Coercible.with(toName).to("Angel"));
    assertThat(allEmployees, Mappable.with(toName).to(Contains.inAnyOrder("Cordelia", "Wesley", "Charles", "Angel")));

Reducible is useful for summing over a collection, e.g.

    assertThat(newArrayList(20, 30, 50), Reducible.with(Reducers.sumIntegers).to(100));

Sometimes we care about the sort order of a collection without especially caring what's in it:

    assertThat(someCollection, Sorted.inAscendingOrder());
    assertThat(someOtherCollection, Sorted.inDescendingOrder());
    assertThat(someWackyCollection, Sorted.with(wackyComparator, "wacky"));

Redescribing matchers

Matchers build up from other matchers sometimes end up with rather unreadable descriptions / mismatch descriptions. It can be helpful to wrap the top-level matcher with a new description and mismatch describer.

    @Test public void
    can_replace_mismatch_description_with_simple_text() {
        Matcher<? super String> containsTheMagicWord = Redescribe.theMatcher(containsString("please"))
                                                                 .as("a polite string")
                                                                 .describingMismatchAs("an impolite string");
        
        assertThat(containsTheMagicWord,
                   a_matcher_with_description("a polite string"));
        
        assertThat(containsTheMagicWord,
                   a_matcher_that_matches("please match this string"));
        
        assertThat(containsTheMagicWord,
                   a_matcher_giving_a_mismatch_description_of("match this string or else",
                                                              containsString("\"match this string or else\" was an impolite string")));
    }