Stefano Cordio

Uhm maybe it's not worth coming up with a new naming pattern for this change, reusing the existing one simplifies the discovery of the new assertions. `containsIgnoring` / `containsNormalizing` is...

@beckerjohannes @joel-costigliola if I understand it correctly, #2204 / 244814c2e0f5264e1c301a7a1e152b68d20b0ed1 added `containsIgnoringWhitespaces`, but additional variants were discussed so this issue should probably stay open. Would it make sense to have...

From https://github.com/assertj/assertj/issues/2713#issuecomment-1199482625, we should consider the following points: * Custom assertions do not require a `public` 1-arg constructor to work as _hard_ assertions. * AssertJ has no concrete documentation or...

Keeping it as a draft until it's confirmed how the licensing aspects for `commons-lang` should be covered.

> So what I'm saying is defining `ignoreWhen` in `AbstractAssert` is not great, thinking out loud we could simply define it in a new interface (`IgnorableAssert` ?) and let the...

Hi @vlsi, thanks for the proposal. Related to what I've mentioned in https://github.com/assertj/assertj-core/pull/2658#issuecomment-1156154810, our experience is that AssertJ problems are usually not related to specific JDK builds/vendors. Reacting to your...

@joel-costigliola the SO question is no longer available. I think this is a new feature/improvement rather than a bug, right?

This issue can be fixed in a similar way to #2167. However, the tests might be a bit more complex due to the additional failure in case `actual` contains the...

Thanks for your help, @wouterpolet! This issue might be not trivial so that's not the best candidate for a first contribution, but it's totally fine and highly appreciated if you...

I also don't see an easy way to have both type-specific assertions and comparable assertions for an object which doesn't implement `Comparable`. If we are willing to sacrifice the type-specific...