Provide some utility methods

[aaschmid]

• A $(...) method as a shortcut for creating an array of Objects from varargs.
• A method to create an Object[][] for all enums in a class
• A method to create a test for every provided Object, e.g. <T> Object[][] method(Iterable<T> args / T ... args) { ... }

[aaschmid]

Also think about providing some possibilities to work with Description of tests. Mainly parse description, and provide class name, test method name, test method arguments ... Current use case: JGiven of @janschaefer Edit: implemented in JGiven -> nothing to do in junit-dataprovider

[aaschmid]

@michaeladler can you tell me if that is what you wanted? Do you maybe have an idea for a better naming for the methods?

[michaeladler]

Yes, this goes in the right direction. Maybe two additional convenience methods:

public static <T> Object[][] toObjectArray( T... input ) {}

public static <T> Object[][] toObjectArray( Iterable<T> input ) {}

Then, instead of

$$($("foo"), $("bar"))

you can write

toObjectArray("foo", "bar")

[michaeladler]

I quite like the method name "$" since it is very short and thus makes it easy to read the code (since it is used very often). The method $$ is generally used only once so you could just call it "merge" - it merges the given Object[] arrays.

[aaschmid]

Ok, good points :-) I have just seen that method public static Object[][] testForEach(Object... args) is what you want with toObjectArray("foo", "bar"), isn't it? And I like $$ for object arrays as it is like $ for objects, however merge is a good name either. I will think about it ...

[michaeladler]

Oh, now I understand... I actually considered this test code that you would remove in the final version :-) You are right, that's what I was looking for. Maybe you should just drop the prefix "test".

[aaschmid]

Yes, you may be right, I have also thought about that. Shouldn't we than change the name of the class to something more meaningful like DataProviders (as guava does for its helpers) or Tests? I don't know because most of the time you will statically import these methods, wouldn't you?

[michaeladler]

Personally I prefer to import all static methods so that I don't have to prefix the class ;-) In that case calling the method "forEach" is probably too general. How about "toSingletonProvider" or something like that. I know, it's hard to find a good name.

[aaschmid]

Yes, it indeed is ... that's why I ask ...

[aaschmid]

@michaeladler If you want, you can review the changes and if they are ok, I will merge it into master branch. I have kept the naming for now, hope that's OK, although I also like toSingletonProvider (but not as much as testForEach)