fail();
    } catch (VerifyException expected) {
      assertThat(expected).hasMessageThat().isEqualTo("message");
    }
  }

  public void testVerify_complexMessage_success() {
    verify(true, "%s", IGNORE_ME);
  }

  public void testVerify_complexMessage_failure() {
    try {
      verify(false, FORMAT, 5);
      fail();
    } catch (VerifyException expected) {
      checkMessage(expected);
    }
  }

                .compare("a", "b")
                .compare(DONT_COMPARE_ME, DONT_COMPARE_ME)
                .result())
        .isLessThan(0);
  }

  public void testShortCircuitGreater() {
    assertThat(
            ComparisonChain.start()
                .compare("b", "a")
                .compare(DONT_COMPARE_ME, DONT_COMPARE_ME)
                .result())
        .isGreaterThan(0);
  }

    //    queue, immediately followed by another thread taking the next element in the queue. That
    //    second thread can then dispatch to the subscriber it took before the first thread does.
    //
    // All this makes me really wonder if there's any value in queueing here at all. A dispatcher
    // that simply loops through the subscribers and dispatches the event to each would actually

      fail();
    } catch (VerifyException expected) {
      assertThat(expected).hasMessageThat().isEqualTo("message");
    }
  }

  public void testVerify_complexMessage_success() {
    verify(true, "%s", IGNORE_ME);
  }

  public void testVerify_complexMessage_failure() {
    try {
      verify(false, FORMAT, 5);
      fail();
    } catch (VerifyException expected) {
      checkMessage(expected);
    }
  }

                .compare("a", "b")
                .compare(DONT_COMPARE_ME, DONT_COMPARE_ME)
                .result())
        .isLessThan(0);
  }

  public void testShortCircuitGreater() {
    assertThat(
            ComparisonChain.start()
                .compare("b", "a")
                .compare(DONT_COMPARE_ME, DONT_COMPARE_ME)
                .result())
        .isGreaterThan(0);
  }