GH-3652: Use assertThat checks in parquet-plugins/parquet-protobuf tests#3653
Merged
Conversation
nastra
force-pushed
the
assertj-parquet-protobuf
branch
from
448ad57 to
9e25b2b
Compare
Contributor
Author
wgtmac
approved these changes
Jul 11, 2026
Fokko
approved these changes
Jul 11, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rationale for this change
Switching assertions from JUnit4-style Assert to AssertJ makes code easier to read and debug when tests fail.
What changes are included in this PR?
This updates parquet-plugins / parquet-protobuf tests to use AssertJ checks, which provide more fluent assertions and more detailed information when assertions fails on CI.
The changes in this PR were done with the help of Claude but I manually reviewed every single LOC
Are these changes tested?
yes, existing tests
Are there any user-facing changes?
no