junit-team
`Assertions.assertNotNull()` should return the non-null object
As a developer, I like to write some test code like:
import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertNotNull;
...
Foo foo = assertNotNull(bar.doSomething()).getFoo();
Deliverables
- An
Assertions.assertNotNull()that returns its input and notvoid. - You could make the same argument for
assertSame()
If using AssertJ is an option, with version 3.27.0 it will be possible to write the following:
import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.assertThat;
...
Foo foo = assertThat(bar.doSomething()).isNotNull().actual().getFoo();
See assertj/assertj#3489.
Hello @scordio
Thank you for your reply.
I'll be honest with you: I'll never write this kind of extra verbose code. I feel that this obfuscates what the test is trying to show.
The reason I gave this example is because I want less code, not more ;-) I'll stick with the straightforward for now :)
Totally understandable 😉 a pure non-null assertion is not the best showcase for that, but users find it handy for more complex use cases.
As with everything, YMMV 🙂
Changing the result type of assertNotNull would break backward (binary) compatibility. You could use java.util.Objects.requireNonNull instead.
I agree BC is key, this would be for 6.0. Nice idea using requireNonNull 👍
The assertNotNull is verbose and superfluous. Just write
Foo foo = bar.doSomething().getFoo();
and Helpful NullPointerExceptions show the null cause.
The assertNotNull is verbose and superfluous. Just write
Foo foo = bar.doSomething().getFoo();and Helpful NullPointerExceptions show the null cause.
Hello @bjmi JEP 358 is irrelevant here since it requires Java 14 or above. It is a great improvement though! 👍
Team decision: Since JUnit 6 requires Java 17, we recommend just writing bar.doSomething().getFoo() from now on or using requireNonNull to avoid any nullability-related IDE/compiler warnings/errors.