From 344e7a4cffac46eb3ef11c50963268134ae3fc4e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Doc SoC Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 11:30:55 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Update examples.md: typo fixed, line breaks in md source improved --- docs/examples.md | 8 +++++--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/examples.md b/docs/examples.md index d9a5430..898e3b6 100644 --- a/docs/examples.md +++ b/docs/examples.md @@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ How to write readable test assertions for advanced tests? ## Decision Outcome -Chosen option: "Plain JUnit5", because it is a standard framework and the features of the other frameworks do not outweigh the drawbrack of adding a new dependency. +Chosen option: "Plain JUnit5", because it is a standard framework + and the features of the other frameworks do not outweigh the drawbrack of adding a new dependency. ``` ## Long Version @@ -71,7 +72,8 @@ Chosen option: "Plain JUnit5", because comes out best (see "Pros and Cons of the * Check project dependencies, JUnit5 should appear (and be the only test assertion library). * Collect experience with JUnit5 in sprint reviews and retrospectives: does the gained experience match the pros and cons evaluation below? -* Decide whether and when to review the decision (this is the 'R' in the [ecADR definition of done](https://medium.com/olzzio/a-definition-of-done-for-architectural-decisions-426cf5a952b9) for ADs). +* Decide whether and when to review the decision (this is the 'R' in the [ecADR definition of done] + (https://medium.com/olzzio/a-definition-of-done-for-architectural-decisions-426cf5a952b9) for ADs). ## Pros and Cons of the Options @@ -134,4 +136,4 @@ German comparison between Hamcrest and AssertJ: