Peter Gafert

Ah, I forgot regarding priority if we should at some point support system property + tooling filters: I would combine these filters the same way as if multiple filters would...

I had thought about offering an inverse way of specifying layers, too. I.e. allow `whereLayer('foo').mayOnlyAccessLayer('bar')`. I would call the method you propose to be named `mayNotAccessAnyLayer()` to be consistent with...

@Fragalli oh man, I've completely overlooked your offer!! Are you still open to it? Or have you moved on? Anyway, I think your idea is how I would do it,...

Yes, operator precedence would have been quite hard to implement, so I decided to do everything left associative, and yes, it's probably not documented the way it should be :wink:...

This depends on what you want. As @hankem pointed out, it's easy to run the tests from the IDE like any ordinary unit test. This will compile the classes and...

I completely agree, that it would be great to have ArchRules within your IDE as you type with direct feedback :slightly_smiling_face: I'm just afraid that it is really a big...

Unfortunately that hasn't been implemented yet. I see why this would be useful, but `ArchRules` follows a completely different pattern than `ArchRule`, because JUnit 4 and JUnit 5 support each...

Thanks for sharing this :smiley: :+1: So far I've shied away a little to tie such build tool extensions into ArchUnit, since this is a long term commitment for maintenance...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you simply do something like ``` @ArchTest val `classes should have only private setters`: ArchRule = classes().should(haveOnlyPrivateSetters()) private fun haveOnlyPrivateSetters() = object :...

Thanks for raising this issue! The behavior actually was implemented like this intentionally :thinking: Because that would have been **my** expectation of the API :joy: I admit that the javadoc...