SImplify negated chained assertions with AssertJ

[timtebeek]

What problem are you trying to solve?

Right now we already simplify quite a few AssertJ assertions that look at isTrue.

rewrite-testing-frameworks/src/main/resources/META-INF/rewrite/assertj.yml

Lines 86 to 100 in 8a037e8

	- org.openrewrite.java.testing.assertj.SimplifyChainedAssertJAssertion:
	chainedAssertion: equals
	assertToReplace: isTrue
	dedicatedAssertion: isEqualTo
	requiredType: java.lang.String
	- org.openrewrite.java.testing.assertj.SimplifyChainedAssertJAssertion:
	chainedAssertion: equalsIgnoreCase
	assertToReplace: isTrue
	dedicatedAssertion: isEqualToIgnoringCase
	requiredType: java.lang.String
	- org.openrewrite.java.testing.assertj.SimplifyChainedAssertJAssertion:
	chainedAssertion: contains
	assertToReplace: isTrue
	dedicatedAssertion: contains
	requiredType: java.lang.String

Some of these also have negated variants that we could quite easily cover as well:

  - org.openrewrite.java.testing.assertj.SimplifyChainedAssertJAssertion:
      chainedAssertion: matches
      assertToReplace: isFalse
      dedicatedAssertion: doesNotMatch
      requiredType: java.lang.String

We should add recipes for negated variants as well, starting with the one above and any similar ones we find.

[Tahanima]

Hi @timtebeek, I would like to add the following recipes:

- org.openrewrite.java.testing.assertj.SimplifyChainedAssertJAssertion:
    chainedAssertion: startsWith
    assertToReplace: isFalse
    dedicatedAssertion: doesNotStartWith
    requiredType: java.lang.String
- org.openrewrite.java.testing.assertj.SimplifyChainedAssertJAssertion:
    chainedAssertion: endsWith
    assertToReplace: isFalse
    dedicatedAssertion: doesNotEndWith
    requiredType: java.lang.String
- org.openrewrite.java.testing.assertj.SimplifyChainedAssertJAssertion:
    chainedAssertion: matches
    assertToReplace: isFalse
    dedicatedAssertion: doesNotMatch
    requiredType: java.lang.String

Should I send a PR?

[timtebeek]

Hi! Yes please! Those are easiest for me to see through

[timtebeek]

With the additions in #594 I think we can close this issue already; we could still identify and add more if needed of course, but there's no need to keep the issue open without a clear example to cover next. Thanks again @Tahanima !