Robert Stoll

would you still use `because` if you could write ``` expect(rs).getInt("pse_units_completed")).toEqual(rs.getInt("pse_units_total")) ``` and in the report you would see: ``` I expected... -> pse_unit_completed: 20 to equal: 19 ``` the...

> asClue wraps the assertion, so it behaves the same for both soft and regular assertions. Exactly, that's the reason why we did the same with `because` so that there...

What's the reason that you don't use `because` but always `group`? I think we could get the report to something like the following -- and in this case we skip...

thanks for the clarification, I see your point about > When I use group, I can either skip it, or I can wrap expectations into a group. Note, in your...

> That is fair. I probably need to rename expectSoftly to group, then it would be extremely consistent :) More related to #1330, I'll continue this aspect there (glad you...

> However, it produced bad reports: it does not print print expectations that hold, and it was hard to understand the actual expectation was between. > Currently, less than 10...

looks promising 👍 > Well, because looks a bit odd, however, in general it works. It would be nice if there was a possibility to squeeze "subject description" in-beween to...

@vlsi Thanks for the link, interesting read. I don't see it mentioned in this issue although I am pretty sure I communicated my idea somewhere. I was thinking to introduce...

I totally agree (see https://github.com/robstoll/atrium-roadmap/issues/39 for further ideas regarding a diff in the IDE). I would like to split the issue into two, the CR vs CRLF hint could be...

I am not sure what you mean by "a generic way to add a hint". In the end we need to adjust DefaultAnyAssertions.toBe, something along the line of ``` override...