The name can be more descriptive, something like containsAccessibilityAnnouncement. Our current nameing convenient is that keyword contains means it can have optional argument that only check against when set, otherwise, it should be matches

Done.

Done.

contains(containsAccessibilityAnnouncement(...)) seems a little funky. What do you think of renaming containsAccessibilityAnnouncement to isAccessibilityAnnouncement?

The isFoo naming convention seems to better match other matchers like isOffstage, isSystemTextScaler, etc.

Ah I see contains was suggested above: #180058 (comment)

Let me discuss offline.

@loic-sharma
I considered that as well. However, since containsSemantics already exists nearby, I used containsAccessibilityAnnouncement for consistency. Maybe we should just update the example in the comment?

@chunhtai and I discussed this. TLDR: Let's rename this to isAccessibilityAnnouncement.

Longer version:

We don't have a consistent naming convention. We'd like to support several kinds of matchers:

1. Partial matchers. These only match the properties you provide. Example: isFoo(property1: true).

   The matcher's arguments are null by default. The matcher only matches on non-null values you provide.

   Unfortunately, you cannot use this partial matcher to assert a value is null. For that you'd use...

2. Exact matchers. These match all the properties, including those you do not provide. Example: matchesFoo(property1: true, nullablePropery: null)

   The matcher's arguments have the same default value as the object's property's default value.

To adopt this naming convention, we'll want to:

1. Add this to our style guide
2. Add a new isSemantics matcher, and deprecate containsSemantics.

I'll file an issue to track this work.

Filed: #180534

Done.