Skip to content

Could Matcher be changed to be typed as Matcher<T>? #2352

Closed as not planned
Closed as not planned
@matanlurey

Description

@matanlurey

Specifically, this allows strongly-typed assurances when creating specialized matchers:

abstract class StringMatcher extends Matcher<String> {}

I don't think this is a breaking change, unless we specifically want to allow something like:

expect(5, isNot(equalsIgnoringCase('5')))

Added after the fact by @nex3

Blocking issues (see comments for details):

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    package:matcherstatus-blockedBlocked from making progress by another (referenced) issuetype-enhancementA request for a change that isn't a bug

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions