Replies: 1 comment 5 replies
-
|
Isn't that what #2607 fixes? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Unfortunately not, the “problematic” behavior is unchanged. As soon as one explicitly named context is in play, using var scope1 = new AssertionScope("Test1");
using var scope2 = new AssertionScope("Test2");
nonEmptyList.Should().BeEmpty();means I get:
Previously, “Test1” wouldn’t have been mentioned, but even now I still don’t see what exactly what checked inside that scope. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Ah, you are expecting something like `Did not expect test1/tests/nonEmptyList to be empty"? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yes, exactly! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
That's what I was expecting too, seems the most intuitive to me. What's the best work around for this currently? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This is how it will work for 8.0 (to be released today)... |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Sometimes, I'd like to provide human-readable context for a particular block of assertions. This however means that FluentAssertions no longer does its automatic assertion subject check. So instead of...
I then get
That's not terribly helpful in my opinion. I can no longer see the property being checked. I'd like to have both: Explicitly provided scope name AND the automatic subject detection. Or maybe even, generally, a way for the resulting context name to be made up of all the nested (named) scopes along the way.
I see that
AssertionScopeis currently being redesigned, so maybe this here is a possible future improvement?Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions