Feature request: Inverse await assertion about awaitility HOT 3 OPEN

Can't this be achieved using during() method? see https://github.com/awaitility/awaitility/wiki/Usage#assert-that-a-value-is-maintained

from awaitility.

In theory, during() would be perfect for checking that a condition is maintained for some time.
In practice, during() also needs a timeout (atMost) and only checks that the condition is maintained for a minimum time during the complete timeout. This behavior is (in my opinion) unexpected, as it does not fail-fast if the condition is false already at the beginning, or changes during any of the polling attempts. For a more complex use case, this behavior makes sense, but for the simple scenario requested here, it doesn't.

I think it could be fixed, by allowing setting the timeout to the same value as the during() duration (and this probably should also be the default behavior for during() without an explicitly set timeout/atMost). Unfortunately this does not work, due to this bug: #186

Also related: #204
In general, my impression is that the current behavior of during() is counter-intuitive (and buggy) and does not allow for the most simple use cases.

from awaitility.

Same here, I want to write some tests that verify a specific condition holds true for a minimum amount of time (and NOT necessarily changes afterward).
Alternative api suggestion:

 await()
   .during( Duration.ofSeconds(10) )
   .holdsTrue( Provider<T>, Predicate<T>);

from awaitility.