-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 731
Fix the return type of TypeAssertions.HaveAccessModifier and NotHaveAccessModifier #1159
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix the return type of TypeAssertions.HaveAccessModifier and NotHaveAccessModifier #1159
Conversation
return AndConstraint with TypeAssertions instead one with Type fluentassertions#1154
|
I wondering whether we should treat this as a binary compatibility issue. |
|
It will be an issue, because the return type is changed and it will throw a So for let's say if the current usage is something like:
After this change the required step would be:
If the |
|
Yeah, so technically this would be a breaking change. But then again, how likely is this going to be a realistic problem. @jnyrup what do you think? |
|
I'm maybe being over-conservative, but I don't think the benefits are worth the breaking change. |
|
Can we continue with this one now that we're accepting potentially breaking changes again? |
|
Let's continue with this! @adrianiftode Note that since #1217 any API change must be changed in the relevant |
…er and NotHaveAccessModifier
7299423 to
c01d8cc
Compare
|
@jnyrup I've run the tests as instructed. When I first time run the tests my editor added an extra line at the end of the files and the tests failed. I wonder if these lines could be relaxed/ignored while asserting it. |
|
Sorry, the flow has been improved since I suggested to "copy over the changes". |
|
I just tried it and looks fine. |
|
While I remember it... |
|
@adrianiftode Thanks again for reporting and contributing a fix for this issue. |
|
It's been a pleasure, thanks for guidance
vin., 21 feb. 2020, 16:57 Jonas Nyrup <notifications@github.com> a scris:
… @adrianiftode <https://github.com/adrianiftode> Thanks again for
reporting *and* contributing a fix for this issue.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1159?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADI5U25MVE4QEYDS7D5UZ5LRD7TVLA5CNFSM4I6VPEH2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEMS65RA#issuecomment-589688516>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADI5U26IKXCLRW7Q6HLTOALRD7TVLANCNFSM4I6VPEHQ>
.
|
#1154
The changes don't include a unit test, because I didn't see a common practice in the code base to test that the AndConstraint is closed with the correct type. The only test I've seen that checks for this particular situation is
When_using_StringCollectionAssertions_the_AndConstraint_should_have_the_correct_type. I could add something similar.There are no references in docs to these two assertions