Shorted Property builder methods

[eeverman]

Ref Issue #587

The current validation methods are very long and wordy. They are very clear in meaning, e.g. mustMatchRegex, however, it makes Property builder strings soooo looong... I'm guessing the meanings are clear enough w/o the extra words.

I'd also like to purge deprecated methods with the 0.5.0 release, so if the old methods are going to be deprecated and renamed, perhaps it should be now in the 04.2 release. The actual change would be relatively easy.

In general, It makes sense to follow the pattern of existing methods. For String that is easy. Here are the current validation methods in StrProp and proposed new names:

Current Name	Proposed New Name	Notes
mustMatchRegex	matches	Same as String.matches(regex)
mustStartWith	startsWith	Same as String.startsWith(prefix)
mustStartWith	startsWith	Same as String.startsWith(prefix)
mustStartWithIgnoreCase	startsWithIgnoreCase	extension of startsWith
mustEndWith	endsWith	Same as String.endsWith(suffix) (sufix is misspelled on this method)
mustEndWithIgnoreCase	endsWithIgnoreCase	extension of startsWith
mustEqual(String...)	oneOf(String...)	'equals' cannot be used - There is no exact corollary.
mustBeNonNull	notNull()	No comp in the String class, but Junit uses assertNotNull

Missing from that list is oneOfIgnoreCase - This method is missing and should be another ticket.

Things are less clear for numeric Properties like IntProp, BigDecProp, etc. There is no obvious example to follow that I can think of. Here are some proposed method names a numeric Property, but I've no idea what the best and most clear names would be:

Current Name	Proposed New Name	Notes
mustBeGreaterThan	greaterThan
mustBeGreaterThanOrEqualTo	greaterThanOrEqual
mustBeLessThan	lessThan
mustBeLessThanOrEqualTo	lessThanOrEqual

[eeverman]

@alex-kar Can you comment on this? All the xxxProp classes are here for reference.

[alex-kar]

I agree, meanings are clear enough even without the extra words.
What about names from Mockito matchers for numeric Properties?
I don't really like it, just want to offer as an alternative.

Current Name	Proposed New Name
mustBeGreaterThan	gt
mustBeGreaterThanOrEqualTo	geq
mustBeLessThan	lt
mustBeLessThanOrEqualTo	leq

[eeverman]

@alex-kar Good thought - But I agree its perhaps a bit too terse. I wonder if those short method names could be added for people who want to use a more compact syntax? It might be a good future addition.

Mockito got me thinking of Hamcrest which I believe is in common use w/ JUnit. The Matchers class is very close to the AndHow method names with the 'must' removed:

Current Name	Proposed New Name	Notes
mustBeGreaterThan	greaterThan
mustBeGreaterThanOrEqualTo	greaterThanOrEqualTo	Hamcrest adds 'To'
mustBeLessThan	lessThan
mustBeLessThanOrEqualTo	lessThanOrEqualTo	Hamcrest adds 'To'

Hamcrest also has String matching that is close but slightly different. Here are key ones from their string matchers:

Current Name	Proposed New Name	Notes
mustEndWithIgnoreCase	endsWithIgnoringCase	Hamcrest has the 'ing'
mustStartWithIgnoreCase	startsWithIgnoringCase	Hamcrest has the 'ing'
mustEqual(String...)	oneOf(String...)	Same as above, but Hamcrest has it as well, so an added vote

So, I propose following the Hamcrest names for numerics and the String validation that have no corollary in the String class. What do you think? Are you interested in implementing it?

[alex-kar]

@eeverman Yes, I would like to take it. This task #587 just to rename those methods, but you mentioned missing oneOfIgnoreCase. Can you assign it to me as well if you're going to open new ticket? Thanks.