Matcher to test timeouts

[llorllale]

We need a proper OOP alternative for @Test#timeout (JUnit 4) and Assertions#assertTimeout (JUnit 5). In particular, the latter reads backwards (it doesn't assert a timeout - it asserts whether the code executes before the timeout).

Proposal:

new Assertion<>(
    "runs in 5 seconds max",
    /* some scalar */,
    new RunsInMax(5, TimeUnit.SECONDS)
).affirm();

Where RunsInMax is a Matcher<Scalar<T>> like Throws.

RunsInMax fails if the scalar under test throws an error, even before the timeout.

I'm open to suggestions for a better name. Maybe DoesNotExceed(5, TimeUnit.SECONDS) sounds better?

[llorllale]

@0crat in

[0crat]

@0crat in (here)

@llorllale Job #133 is now in scope, role is DEV

[0crat]

Bug was reported, see §29: +15 point(s) just awarded to @llorllale/z

[0crat]

The job #133 assigned to @victornoel/z, here is why; the budget is 30 minutes, see §4; please, read §8 and §9; if the task is not clear, read this and this; there will be no monetary reward for this job

[victornoel]

@llorllale usually, with @Test#timeout, the timeout is expressed on top of another assertion. You don't just test that a function runs in less than a given amount or fails if not.

Don't you think we should have something like this instead:

new Assertion<>(
    "runs in 5 seconds max",
    () -> new TextOf("test"),
    new MatchesBefore(
        new TextIs("test"),
        5, TimeUnit.SECONDS
    )
).affirm();

An alternative would be for Assertion#affirm to be called in the Scalar maybe.

[victornoel]

@0crat wait for ARC answer

[0crat]

@0crat wait for ARC answer (here)

@victornoel The impediment for #133 was registered successfully by @victornoel/z

[0crat]

@0crat wait for ARC answer (here)

@victornoel There is an unrecoverable failure on my side. Please, submit it here:

PID: 4@dddff4c1-9156-49e2-a2d9-cf978c5a9655, thread: pool-11-thread-8
org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.ScriptBytecodeAdapter[66] groovy.lang.MissingPropertyException: No such property: issue for class: com.zerocracy.stk.pm.in.impediments.add_waiting_label

0.48.2: CID: c14f0688-f370-4ed4-ba68-74a01385b4fc, Type: "Impediment was registered"

[llorllale]

@victornoel I would be OK if you invert the order of the arguments in your example:

new Assertion<>(
    "runs in 5 seconds max",
    () -> new TextOf("test"),
    new MatchesBefore(
        5, TimeUnit.SECONDS.
        new TextIs("test")        
    )
).affirm();

[0crat]

The architect of the project has changed; @llorllale/z is not at this role anymore; @paulodamaso/z is the architect now

[victornoel]

@0crat wait for #145 to be merged

[0crat]

@0crat wait for #145 to be merged (here)

@victornoel Job #133 is already on hold

[0pdd]

@llorllale the puzzle #146 is still not solved.

[victornoel]

@llorllale this was merged in #145, can you close the issue?

[llorllale]

@victornoel thanks!

[0crat]

@paulodamaso/z all QAs are on vacation. Please handle that.

[0crat]

The job #133 is now out of scope

[paulodamaso]

@0crat quality good

[0crat]

@0crat quality good (here)

@paulodamaso There is no quality review for #133, no performer

[0pdd]

@llorllale the only puzzle #146 is solved here.