Range assertions

[igorwojda]

I was thinking about adding range specific assertions.

First of all current shouldContain / shouldNotContain may not be efficient as we are using generic inferable implementation withforEach under the hood instead of range specificrange.first and range.lastproperties (r1.first >= r2.first && r1.last <= r2.last)

Second, below generic iterable extensions seems to be a bit counter-intuitive because we are not treating ranges as mathematical sets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics) :

val r1 = 1..9
val r2 = 4..5

//should pass because r2 range contains r1 (currently this fails)
r1 shouldContain r2 
//java.lang.AssertionError: Iterable doesn't contain "4..5"
//   Expected:   the Iterable to contain "4..5"
//   Actual:     1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

//--------
// should fail because r2 does not contain r1 (now it fails but kind of from wrong reason - looks 
//for r1 object, not for it's values - mathematical set)
r2 shouldContain r1
//java.lang.AssertionError: Iterable doesn't contain "1..9"
//  Expected:   the Iterable to contain "1..9"
//  Actual:     4, 5

Maybe we should add more specific implementation for shouldContain/shouldNotContain to Range related types (ClosedRange children) 🤔 or optionally add range specifics extension shouldBeInRange / shouldNotBeInRange

val r1 = 1..9
val r2 = 4..5

r1 shouldBeInRange r2 //fail
r2 shouldBeInRange r1 //pass

[MarkusAmshove]

Thanks for raising this, that would be a nice addition!

A specific overload of either function should do it, but I'm not sure which function we should use.

shouldContain would be intuitive because it was the first thing you tried. However I think we wouldn't be able to use shouldContain for e.g. a list if ranges anymore and therefore could break existing code.

shouldBeInRange might not be the first thing I'd think about when thinking about Sets, but might show a clearer intention

I would go with the 2nd option, but if you want to implement it I'm fine with either :)
In the case of the first option we should make sure not to break existing code

[javatarz]

I've added shouldBeInRange for ranges. The original issue said we want shouldNotContain. Would a matching shouldNotBeInRange/shouldBeOutOfRange make more sense?

Please let me know which one you'd prefer @MarkusAmshove and @igorwojda. I'll update my PR accordingly :)

[MarkusAmshove]

I'd vote for shouldNotBeInRange to stay consistent with other assertions :-)

[igorwojda]

Same with me