Peter Gafert

Yes, that sounds like a good idea!! Thresholds like this would definitely be useful. I wish I could split myself into several devs, then I'd already be working on this...

Sure, for mail check https://github.com/codecholeric or @codecholeric on Twitter. I you want, we can schedule some video conference to check out the code. I don't know, if the report is...

To conclude our video conference: * it it unfeasible to build this into ArchUnit's evaluation core, because simple JUnit tests are evaluated too locally (e.g. threshold 100, you evaluate a...

I do agree that there is some room for optimization of the ignore pattern handling. My thoughts when I originally implemented it was, that maybe you have one central ignore...

@Kaammill and yes, the issue is up for grabs and we're always super happy about contributions :smiley:

You mean like a Java Bean standard test, right? Unfortunately that doesn't exist yet :frowning_face: (I'm also not a big fan of the standard, i.g., but I know that in...

@hankem thanks for the update :+1: This looks more and more like it should actually be part of the lang API out of the box, so nobody else has to...

Can you elaborate a little what you mean by "good to have an example"? Do you mean you would like to see one for yourself? Or that we should add...

But isn't writing these rules absolutely no different from writing any ordinary rule? How does it defer from writing any other rule for a specific property of my code base?...

You can also take a look at ArchUnit's own unit tests :slightly_smiling_face: We nowadays often just define local classes to keep everything in the test together. Like ``` @Test void...