where matcher would be a hamcrest matcher given the ClientRequest object to match against. This would allow another level of flexibility in match configuration.
Note: that the match method would be generic to handle whatever the matcher matches, including the request method.
While an interesting idea, this is not really needed and would require a major change of the expectation definition architecture. Killing this for now.
It might be useful to add a means of writing a matcher directly against a request, something like:
where
matcher
would be a hamcrest matcher given theClientRequest
object to match against. This would allow another level of flexibility in match configuration.Note: that the
match
method would be generic to handle whatever the matcher matches, including the request method.