AssertJ VS JSONAssert

Maybe not the feedback you want, but would you consider developing something that looks like plain old (and frankly beautiful) AssertJ?

AssertJ - fluent assertions

AssertJ https://github.com/assertj/assertj

Truth or AssertJ for easier assertions in tests with better exceptions

While we are at it: AssertJ is very powerful for writing assertions.

In OO you can make beautiful DSLs that allow really declarative use within that domain, e.g. test assertions in AssertJ, but everybody in the OO world is sensible enough to not try and claim OO as such being declarative. I guess they don't feel a need to try to prove the superiority of the paradigm.

AssertJ comes with a variety of assertions that can be chained together and are specific to the type of your "actual" variable.

At any rate it comes from a library called assertj.

While Hamcrest add some fluentidity to unit tests ä, I prefer the fluent assertions of AssertJ.

And finally, we check that the supplied json equals to the one we got on step 3 (I use JSONAssert library here). The false boolean parameter tells to check only overlapping fields. For example, if the actual result contains the addressV2 field and the expected object doesn’t, it won’t trigger the failure. That’s a normal situation because backward compatibility data is static while the OrderCreated might grow with new parameters.

This can be improved, it'd be worth Googling for a better solution than what you have.

https://github.com/skyscreamer/JSONassert seems decent.

but it can be done from scratch in a few hours (I'd recommend this if you have 'standardized' fields which you may want to ignore):

1) Move to a matcher library for assertions (Hamcrest is decent), and abstract `toJSON` into the a matcher, rather on the input.

This would change the assertion from:

`assertEquals(toJson(someObject), giantJsonBlobFromADifferentFile)`

to:

`assertThat(someObject, jsonEqual(giantJsonBlobFromADifferentFile))`

The difference here is subtle: it allows `jsonEqual` to control the formatting of the test failure output, so on a failure you can:

* convert both of the strings back to JSON

* perform a diff, and provide the diff in the test output.

Decent blog post on the topic: https://veskoiliev.com/use-custom-hamcrest-matchers-to-level...