Add hasRecordComponents() Class assertion

[ljrmorgan]

Check List:

• Fixes NA
• Unit tests : YES
• Javadoc with a code example (on API only) : YES
• PR meets the contributing guidelines

Add a hasRecordComponents() Class assertion, following on from #2968.

I've tried to take a similar approach to assertions like hasPublicFields(), but as with isRecord() and isNotRecord() I've left the implementation of the assertion in AbstractClassAssert rather than extracting it to Classes.

[scordio]

Thanks @ljrmorgan, just two comments

[ljrmorgan]

Thanks for reviewing @scordio!

I was trying to copy the behaviour of hasPublicFields()/hasDeclaredFields() etc. which when they are called with no arguments assert that the class has no public/declared field. TBH though I found that behaviour a bit surprising, and I prefer your suggestion of just requiring that at least one parameter is passed to hasRecordComponents() (presumably by changing the signature to something like hasRecordComponents(String first, String... rest)?)

I'm less sure about adding a hasNoRecordComponents() assertion though. I can add it if you feel strongly, but I'm wondering if that's actually a useful thing to assert? I can understand why people might want to assert that a class has no public fields, I can't really think of a scenario where someone would to check that a record has no record components (or even why someone would want to create a record with no record components). I'm happy to go with whatever you think though.

Thanks!

[scordio]

presumably by changing the signature to something like hasRecordComponents(String first, String... rest)?

That could work, or also keeping a single vararg but making sure it's not null and has at least one element, checks that can be done in the method body.

I'm less sure about adding a hasNoRecordComponents() assertion though.

Fair enough, nothing prevents us to add it later if users come back with a concrete use case. For now, let's skip it.

[scordio]

This is now merged. Thanks, @ljrmorgan!