False positive results when I use ArchRuleDefinition.noClasses() about archunit HOT 7 CLOSED

Thanks @GuiRodriguero and @hankem , with satisfied condition works perfectly

from archunit.

Hi @ramon2!
I faced the same issue today and for me, changing from events.add(violated...) to events.add(satisfied...) was enough
If you're telling ArchUnit "no classes should be like this", then the condition must be satisfied, not violated

Let me know if it works for you :)

from archunit.

yes, thanks

from archunit.

There seems to be a confusion about the semantics of the condition in these rules (which could be better documented 🙈):

• A rule classes().that().….should(complyWithARule) passes if and only if all selected classes satisfy the condition complyWithARule.
• A rule noClasses().that().….should(breakARule) passes if and only if all classes selected by that().… actually violate the condition breakARule.

This is why it's actually expected that your test with the "alwaysFail" condition indeed passes perfectly.

Whenever I can't wrap my head around this kind of logic, I imagine a simple example:

• classes().should().haveSimpleName("A") fails on classes with simple name other than A.
• noClasses().should().haveSimpleName("A") fails on classes with simple name A.

You can change from noClasses() to classes() by inverting the condition (e.g. using ArchConditions.not or ArchConditions.never).

from archunit.

Thanks @hankem for the response, but I tried all possible scenarios using ArchRuleDefinition.noClasses() with a custom ArchCondition and I couldn't make the tests fail. For example, I tested cases where the condition:

• always fails for all evaluated classes
• only fails for one of the evaluated classes
• never fails for any of the evaluated classes

and the result is always successful. Could you provide an example that fails with noClasses() and a custom ArchCondition? I suppose I’m missing something, and maybe an example could help me.

from archunit.

@GuiRodriguero is exactly right:
Whether the evaluation of an ArchCondition needs to add aConditionEvent that isViolated or not depends only on the semantics of the condition – for example, haveSimpleName("A") adds a SimpleConditionEvent with satisfied = true for every object that has simple name "A" and satisfied = false for every other object. It then depends on the rule which objects pass the test and which fail. (That's why alwaysFail is a misleading name for your demo condition.)

from archunit.

I'm glad that it works for you! Can we then close this issue?

from archunit.