Why is this an issue?
The standard assertions library methods such as
org.junit.Assert.assertSame expect the
first argument to be the expected value and the second argument to be the actual value. For AssertJ instead, the argument of
org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.assertThat is the actual value, and the subsequent calls contain the expected values.
What is the potential impact?
Having the expected value and the actual value in the wrong order will not alter the outcome of tests, (succeed/fail when it should) but the error
messages will contain misleading information.
This rule raises an issue when the actual argument to an assertions library method is a hard-coded value and the expected argument is not.
How to fix it
You should provide the assertion methods with a hard-coded value as the expected value, while the actual value of the assertion should derive from
the portion of code that you want to test.
Noncompliant code example
org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(runner.exitCode(), 0, "Unexpected exit code"); // Noncompliant; Yields error message like: Expected:<-1>. Actual:<0>.
org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.assertThat(0).isEqualTo(runner.exitCode()); // Noncompliant
org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(0, runner.exitCode(), "Unexpected exit code");