Remove redundant lambdas from test

[findepi]

Whole test method asserts that every line of it succeeds, so using assertThatNoException is redundant. Of course there could be convention to clearly separate test setup and test assertions (given-when-then), but that's not a convention we use, thuse assertThatNoException() is redundant.

[ksobolew]

It seems you're arguing that assertThatNoException() serves no purpose at all, because if there is an exception, then the test will fail. The difference is that with this assertion it will be a "test failed" instead of "test error", the latter of which I think is reserved for "unexpected" failures outside of the scope of what we're testing. So I don't think this method is redundant in those tests - it makes the intent clearer.

(Unless I misunderstood the rationale!)

[findepi]

It seems you're arguing that assertThatNoException() serves no purpose at all, because if there is an exception, then the test will fail. The difference is that with this assertion it will be a "test failed" instead of "test error", the latter of which I think is reserved for "unexpected" failures outside of the scope of what we're testing.

I am not arguing with that.

See PR description. I admit that assertThatNoException() could be useful if it is established practice in a project. It just is not a practice in this project, so in this project it is not useful. Being verbose and not being useful (in this project) is sufficient condition for a removal.