Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Favor xmlunit-assertj3 instead of xmlunit-assertj #32997

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

scordio
Copy link
Contributor

@scordio scordio commented Nov 4, 2022

As an outcome of xmlunit/xmlunit#203, xmlunit-assertj3 was created to better integrate with the AssertJ 3.x API (Java 8 based), while the existing xmlunit-assertj remains compatible with AssertJ 2.x (Java 7 based and on maintenance mode).

Knowing that Spring Boot 2 was already requiring Java 8 as the minimum requirement, I think it would be a more sensible choice to include xmlunit-assertj3.

@spring-projects-issues spring-projects-issues added the status: waiting-for-triage An issue we've not yet triaged label Nov 4, 2022
@wilkinsona
Copy link
Member

wilkinsona commented Nov 4, 2022

Thanks, @scordio. Rather than replacing the dependency management for xmlunit-assertj, which will break people's builds when they upgrade, I think we should add dependency management for xmlunit-assertj3 alongside it. Looking at this also helped me to notice that dependency management for xmlunit-jakarta-jaxb-impl is also missing for Boot 3.0. I've taken care of things in #32998, #32999, and, #33000. Thanks again for bringing this to our attention.

@wilkinsona wilkinsona closed this Nov 4, 2022
@wilkinsona wilkinsona added status: superseded An issue that has been superseded by another and removed status: waiting-for-triage An issue we've not yet triaged labels Nov 4, 2022
@scordio scordio deleted the xmlunit-assertj3 branch November 4, 2022 10:52
@scordio
Copy link
Contributor Author

scordio commented Nov 4, 2022

Thanks for the detailed explanation, @wilkinsona. I approached this topic quite quickly and didn't give enough weight to the breaking change, let alone the possible backporting 🙂

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
status: superseded An issue that has been superseded by another
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants