“是”是指在 JUnit 4 断言中
之间有语义差异吗
assertThat(object1, is(equalTo(object2)));
写作和写作
assertThat(object1, equalTo(object2)));
？如果没有，我更喜欢第一个版本，因为它读起来更好。这里还有其他考虑吗？
Is there any semantic difference between writing
assertThat(object1, is(equalTo(object2)));
and writing
assertThat(object1, equalTo(object2)));
? If not, I would prefer the first version, because it reads better. Are there any other considerations here?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（2）
文档说明了一切：
装饰另一个匹配器，保留行为，但允许测试稍微更具表现力。
例如。 assertThat(奶酪, equalTo(臭))
与assertThat(cheese, is(equalTo(smelly)))
http://www.junit.org/apidocs/org/hamcrest/core/Is.html
换句话说，你走在正确的道路上。
Documentation says it all:
Decorates another Matcher, retaining the behavior but allowing tests to be slightly more expressive.
eg. assertThat(cheese, equalTo(smelly))
vs assertThat(cheese, is(equalTo(smelly)))
http://www.junit.org/apidocs/org/hamcrest/core/Is.html
In other words, you're on the right track.
据我所知，它们是等效的。 “
Is”匹配器只是传递到包含的匹配器。看起来它是为了增加可读性，也许还有向后兼容性。They are equivalent, as far as I'm aware. The "
Is" matcher just passes through to the contained matcher. It seems it's there to add readability, and perhaps backwards compatibility.