clues for `assertEquals`

[scarf005]

//> using test.dep org.scalameta::munit::1.1.0

class Suite extends munit.FunSuite:
    def add(a: Int, b: Int): Int = a + b

    test("example"):
        List(
          1 -> 1,
          1 -> 2,
        ).foreach { (a, b) => assertEquals(clue(add(a, b)), 2) }

$ scala --cli-version 1.7.1 test myfile.scala
Compiling project (Scala 3.6.4, JVM (23))
Compiled project (Scala 3.6.4, JVM (23))
Suite:
==> X Suite.example  0.042s munit.ComparisonFailException: /run/media/home/scarf/repo/etc/kata/myfile.scala:10
9:           1 -> 2,
10:        ).foreach { (a, b) => assertEquals(clue(add(a, b)), 2) }
values are not the same
=> Obtained
3
=> Diff (- expected, + obtained)
-2
+3
    at munit.FunSuite.assertEquals(FunSuite.scala:13)
    at Suite.$init$$$anonfun$1$$anonfun$1(myfile.scala:10)
    at scala.collection.immutable.List.foreach(List.scala:334)
    at Suite.$init$$$anonfun$1(myfile.scala:10)

when using foreach with assertEquals, error messages could be hard to process as it's not possible to see which params were passed to (in this case, 1 and 2). would be great if params could be (somehow) captured for assertEquals too like assert:

//> using dep org.scalameta::munit::1.1.0

class Suite extends munit.FunSuite:
    def add(a: Int, b: Int): Int = a + b

    test("example"):
        List(
          1 -> 1,
          1 -> 2,
        ).foreach { (a, b) => assert(clue(add(clue(a), clue(b))) == clue(2)) }

Suite:
==> X Suite.example  0.024s munit.FailException: /run/media/home/scarf/repo/etc/kata/myfile.scala:10 assertion failed
9:           1 -> 2,
10:        ).foreach { (a, b) => assert(clue(add(clue(a), clue(b))) == clue(2)) }
Clues {
  a: Int = 1
  b: Int = 2
  add(clue(a), clue(b)): Int = 3
  2: Int = 2
}
    at munit.FunSuite.assert(FunSuite.scala:13)
    at Suite.$init$$$anonfun$1$$anonfun$1(myfile.scala:10)
    at scala.collection.immutable.List.foreach(List.scala:334)
    at Suite.$init$$$anonfun$1(myfile.scala:10)

[tgodzik]

Thanks for reporting! It should be possible to do, though I am not sure why the decisions was done to skip them in assertEquals. Might have been due to the fact that, it was expected to have enough info in the text diff.

Maybe it's just the case of porting the bahaviour from assert?