Compare two different versions of assertEquals()

Compare two different versions of assertEquals()

Look at the definitions of assertEquals() in JUnit and TestNG respectively:

JUnit：

    static void assertEquals(Java.lang.Object expected, java.lang.Object actual)
    static void assertEquals(java.lang.String message, java.lang.Object expected, java.lang.Object actual)

TestNG：

 static void assertEquals(java.lang.Object actual, java.lang.Object expected)
     static void assertEquals(java.lang.Object actual, java.lang.Object expected, java.lang.String message)

Ignore the type of each parameter and do not consider it, re-view actual , expected, message The order of these three parameters:

The order in JUnit is: (message), expected, actual.

The order in TestNG is: actual, expected, (message).

The subtle difference is the order of actual (actual value) and expected (expected value), and its relative position to the other two parameters when message (information text) exists . In JUnit, message (if it exists) takes precedence, followed by expected, and then actual; in TestNG, it is exactly the opposite, actual takes precedence, followed by expected, and then message.

In comparison, I think TestNG's definition of assertEquals() is more in line with human thinking logic, which is the so-called "user friendliness". Of course, this is just a personal opinion, a matter of opinion.

When I first saw the definition of assertEquals() in JUnit, I was thinking, why isn't actual first and expected last? Today I saw TestNG's definition of assertEquals() for the first time, and suddenly I felt like "everyone sees the same thing". Of course, bringing this up now feels like an afterthought.

Based on this, I applaud TestNG!

The above is the comparison of two different versions of assertEquals(). For more related content, please pay attention to the PHP Chinese website (www.php.cn)!