You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Because of a recent discussion, I extract my suggestion from this comment into a separate issue.
It would be great to have onlyClasses() as entry point. Rules created with onlyClasses() should fail
if classes that match the that condition, don't match the should condition, and
if classes that don't match the that condition, match the should condition.
Same goes for onlyMethods(), onlyFields(), only(ClassesTransformer) etc.
The current alternative is to write rules "twice":
CompositeArchRule.of(
classes().that().areAnnotatedWith(RestController.class).should().haveSimpleNameEndingWith("RestController")
).and(
classes().that().haveSimpleNameEndingWith("RestController").should().beAnnotatedWith(RestController.class)
).as("only classes that are annotated with @RestController should have simple name ending with 'RestController'")
// vs.onlyClasses().that().areAnnotatedWith(RestController.class).should().haveSimpleNameEndingWith("RestController")
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Because of a recent discussion, I extract my suggestion from this comment into a separate issue.
It would be great to have
onlyClasses()
as entry point. Rules created withonlyClasses()
should failthat
condition, don't match theshould
condition, andthat
condition, match theshould
condition.Same goes for
onlyMethods()
,onlyFields()
,only(ClassesTransformer)
etc.The current alternative is to write rules "twice":
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: