Implement a matcher for parallel runs in iterables #383
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
Introduce a new matcher `containsParallelRunsOf` and express the existing `containsInRelativeOrder` matcher using the new matcher with a single run as argument.
|
@tumbarumba Please close this PR, it has been merged into PR #443 . |
|
Thank you for your efforts, @rmcdouga! I'll close this PR and watch yours. Hope we will see a new release. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Introduce a new matcher
containsParallelRunsOfand express the existingcontainsInRelativeOrdermatcher using the new matcher with a single run as argument.Use case
In a project I am working on, we have a piece of code that logs a couple of messages and is being called multiple times in parallel. In the unit test of that code, we want to verify that the logs are correct. This is not straightforward, because the logs can be mixed up because of the parallel calls. Still, we want to check that (1) all logs are there and (2) their relative order is correct.
This is essentially a slightly more general version of the existing
containsInRelativeOrdermatcher, which is why I was able to express that matcher using the new one in this MR.