Fix assertions Without*** when there are multiple failures (#1937) #1938
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…ked correctly when there is more than one failure
Member
|
Thanks, looks good. Give me a shout once you’re happy with your additional testing and I’ll get this deployed. |
…ions too to correctly display failures
Contributor
Author
|
@JeremySkinner I think, now it's working as expected. Asymmetry in |
Member
|
Merged, thanks for doing this so quickly! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
For assertions in a form of
Without***we need to use only failures that are matching to previously applied predicates (such as property name). Otherwise, we are treating failures for other properties as violating current assertion.Example:
Name must not be emptySurname must not be emptyresults.ShouldHaveValidationErrorFor(x => x.Surname)has Failure 1 inUnmatchingFailuresand Failure 2 inMatchingFailures. If we then add a predicate.WithoutErrorCode("foo")and apply it to all failures (as we did before), then Failure 1 will be considered a violation. In this PR we changeWhenAllto only considerMatchingFailures- and Failure 1 does not have effect.Similar logic applies to
With***assertions: when they are multiple failing rules and one of the expectations was not met (for ex.,WithMessagespecifies a wrong text) we should be usingMatchingFailuresto correctly display a validation messsage.Fixes #1937