Rework EnumAssertions #1479
Merged
Rework EnumAssertions #1479
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
9cfc7d6 to
6929e1e
Compare
9bba195 to
bd3340e
Compare
Member
Author
|
I'd especially like an extra eye on the negative statements, if they handle nulls as expected. |
dennisdoomen
reviewed
Feb 8, 2021
| nav: "sidebar" | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| ## Enums ## |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 You really did a great job here.
bd3340e to
975794a
Compare
975794a to
deca4db
Compare
dennisdoomen
approved these changes
Feb 9, 2021
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New
EnumAssertionsto follow up #1375 and to solve #1204Be()now expects an expectation of the same type of enum, which was an issue that gave false negatives, e.g. #1403.More lightweight/relevant IntelliSense as it doesn't inherit assertion methods from
ReferenceAssertions.Before:
After:
I've excluded
[Not]BeEquivalentTo(object)as all cases that I can think of are now covered by:[Not]HaveSameValueAs[Not]HaveSameNameAs[Not]HaveValue(decimal)One question that remains for me, it whether it is too confusing that
HaveValueis both used in:NullableEnumAssertionsto assert if it is not null, and inEnumAssertionsto assert on the underlying numeric value.cc: @lg2de
This fixes #1204
This fixes #1403