Skip to content

Simplify inheritance of SubsequentOrderingAssertions #2439

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
dennisdoomen merged 3 commits into from
Oct 26, 2024
Merged

Simplify inheritance of SubsequentOrderingAssertions #2439

dennisdoomen merged 3 commits into from
Oct 26, 2024

Conversation

@vbreuss
Copy link
Contributor

@vbreuss vbreuss commented Nov 5, 2023 •
edited
Loading

The SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions<TCollection, T> is only used as a base class for SubsequentOrderingAssertions. By moving the functionality into the (previously empty) SubsequentOrderingAssertions the inheritance tree can be simplified.

This should also increase the code coverage according to #1823.

IMPORTANT

  • If the PR touches the public API, the changes have been approved in a separate issue with the "api-approved" label.
  • The code complies with the Coding Guidelines for C#.
  • The changes are covered by unit tests which follow the Arrange-Act-Assert syntax and the naming conventions such as is used in these tests.
  • If the PR adds a feature or fixes a bug, please update the release notes with a functional description that explains what the change means to consumers of this library, which are published on the website.
  • If the PR changes the public API the changes needs to be included by running AcceptApiChanges.ps1 or AcceptApiChanges.sh.
  • If the PR affects the documentation, please include your changes in this pull request so the documentation will appear on the website.
    • Please also run ./build.sh --target spellcheck or .\build.ps1 --target spellcheck before pushing and check the good outcome

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Nov 5, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 11520540879

Details

  • 20 of 20 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.02%) to 97.625%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 11501172209: 0.02%
Covered Lines: 12205
Relevant Lines: 12378
💛 - Coveralls

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 5, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Qodana for .NET

It seems all right 👌

No new problems were found according to the checks applied

💡 Qodana analysis was run in the pull request mode: only the changed files were checked

View the detailed Qodana report

To be able to view the detailed Qodana report, you can either:

  1. Register at Qodana Cloud and configure the action
  2. Use GitHub Code Scanning with Qodana
  3. Host Qodana report at GitHub Pages
  4. Inspect and use qodana.sarif.json (see the Qodana SARIF format for details)

To get *.log files or any other Qodana artifacts, run the action with upload-result option set to true,
so that the action will upload the files as the job artifacts:

      - name: 'Qodana Scan'
        uses: JetBrains/qodana-action@v2023.2.8
        with:
          upload-result: true
Contact Qodana team

Contact us at qodana-support@jetbrains.com

dennisdoomen
dennisdoomen reviewed Nov 9, 2023
View reviewed changes
@vbreuss vbreuss changed the title Fix inheritance of SubsequentOrderingAssertions Simplify inheritance of SubsequentOrderingAssertions Nov 9, 2023
@dennisdoomen dennisdoomen requested a review from jnyrup November 9, 2023 09:15
@dennisdoomen dennisdoomen enabled auto-merge (squash) November 9, 2023 09:15
@jnyrup
Copy link
Member

jnyrup commented Nov 11, 2023

I don't know or recall why #1416 used SubsequentOrderingAssertions in GenericCollectionAssertions instead of SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions.
The latter retains TCollection whereas the former uses IEnumerable<T> which TCollection is constrained to.

Could we use SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions instead of SubsequentOrderingAssertions?

@vbreuss
Copy link
Contributor Author

vbreuss commented Nov 11, 2023

Could we use SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions instead of SubsequentOrderingAssertions?

I don't have any preference regarding the naming. I was simply wondering why it needed so many levels of inheritance and could find no reason for it. Should I rename SubsequentOrderingAssertions to SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions?

@jnyrup
Copy link
Member

jnyrup commented Nov 11, 2023

Could we use SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions instead of SubsequentOrderingAssertions?

I don't have any preference regarding the naming. I was simply wondering why it needed so many levels of inheritance and could find no reason for it. Should I rename SubsequentOrderingAssertions to SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions?

Not sure I get you.
I didn't mean rename SubsequentOrderingAssertions to SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions, but let the relevant assertions in GenericCollectionAssertions return SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions instead of SubsequentOrderingAssertions.

@vbreuss
Copy link
Contributor Author

vbreuss commented Nov 11, 2023

Not sure I get you.
I didn't mean rename SubsequentOrderingAssertions to SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions, but let the relevant assertions in GenericCollectionAssertions return SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions instead of SubsequentOrderingAssertions.

That would practically be the same. All methods were in one class and all other classes were empty. I chose SubsequentOrderingAssertions to keep (move all logic inside and remove the inheritance). Alternatively I could keep the logic in SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions and replace all references of SubsequentOrderingAssertions with it.

I expected the first change to have less chance of breaking things, as I don't change the return type of existing methods. That was my reason for choosing this way...

auto-merge was automatically disabled January 3, 2024 14:39

Head branch was pushed to by a user without write access

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 3, 2024

Qodana for .NET

It seems all right 👌

No new problems were found according to the checks applied

💡 Qodana analysis was run in the pull request mode: only the changed files were checked
☁️ View the detailed Qodana report

Contact Qodana team

Contact us at qodana-support@jetbrains.com

@dennisdoomen
Copy link
Member

dennisdoomen commented Jan 6, 2024

@jnyrup I think this is waiting for you, isn't it?

@ITaluone
Copy link
Contributor

ITaluone commented Jun 25, 2024

What is the state of this one?

@vbreuss
Copy link
Contributor Author

vbreuss commented Jun 27, 2024

I'm not sure. It's more a refactoring change missing a review from @jnyrup.

I can rebase the branch, or abandon the PR.

@dennisdoomen
Copy link
Member

dennisdoomen commented Oct 23, 2024

Please consider rebasing on develop

@vbreuss
Copy link
Contributor Author

vbreuss commented Oct 24, 2024

Please consider rebasing on develop

Oh, wow, you finished your big PR 😊

@vbreuss vbreuss requested a review from dennisdoomen October 24, 2024 18:36
@vbreuss
Copy link
Contributor Author

vbreuss commented Oct 24, 2024

@dennisdoomen : I am not sure, why the Qodana build failed, but it seems not to be related with my changes...

@dennisdoomen
Copy link
Member

dennisdoomen commented Oct 25, 2024

I am not sure, why the Qodana build failed, but it seems not to be related with my changes...

Something is wrong with the commit SHA we pass. Somebody at JetBrains is getting some confirmation for me.

@dennisdoomen dennisdoomen merged commit acd34a5 into fluentassertions:develop Oct 26, 2024
This was referenced Jul 21, 2025
Closed
Closed
This was referenced Dec 30, 2025
Merged
Merged
Closed
Closed
Open
Merged
Open
Open
Open
Open
Closed
This was referenced Jan 6, 2026
Closed
Closed
Closed
Open
Merged
Closed
Merged
Open
Closed
Merged
Open
Open
This was referenced Jan 14, 2026
Closed
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@dennisdoomen dennisdoomen dennisdoomen approved these changes

@jnyrup jnyrup Awaiting requested review from jnyrup

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

breaking change

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@vbreuss @coveralls @jnyrup @dennisdoomen @ITaluone