Assertions for Task and Task<T> with CompleteWithin checks #1048

dennisdoomen · 2019-05-25T14:43:19Z

Replaces #1013 by applying some more refactoring on #1013.

Thanks to @lg2de for the original implementation.

lg2de · 2019-05-27T12:21:30Z

Today I looked deeper in your PR. In addition to my review comments below, please note the following:

You named the PR similar to Assertions for Task and Task<T> with CompleteWithin checks #1013 but you implemented it similar to Task func extensions #1011.
You closed Assertions for Task and Task<T> with CompleteWithin checks #1013 as replaced. But my intention there was the extending Task directly. You extended Func<Task>.

lg2de

I'm not in the position to "request" changes, but I recommend at least thinking about...

Src/FluentAssertions/Specialized/AsyncFunctionAssertions.cs

Src/FluentAssertions/Specialized/GenericAsyncFunctionAssertions.cs

lg2de · 2019-05-27T12:20:14Z

Tests/Shared.Specs/TaskAssertionSpecs.cs

+
+namespace FluentAssertions.Specs
+{
+    public class TaskAssertionSpecs


You are testing here Func<Task> not Task.
So this tests should be placed in the file for the other Func tests.

Which one do you mean?

AsyncFunctionExceptionAssertionSpecs.cs

I suspected that one, but that one acts on exceptions, not tasks.

Then I recommend AsyncMethodAssertionSpecs.cs here and AsyncFunctionAssertionSpecs.cs below.
Or - following your implementation classes GenericAsyncFunctionAssertionsSpecs.cs and NonGenericAsyncFunctionAssertionsSpecs.cs.

BTW: I myself prefer positive logic. This is why I do not that like "NonGeneric".

lg2de · 2019-05-27T12:20:33Z

Tests/Shared.Specs/TaskOfTAssertionSpecs.cs

+
+namespace FluentAssertions.Specs
+{
+    public class TaskOfTAssertionSpecs


introduce ITimer to abstract real timing in the tests rework after review rework after review Another pass of review.

dennisdoomen · 2019-05-27T17:55:24Z

I'm not in the position to "request" changes, but I recommend at least thinking about...

Of course you are. And you were even right.

You named the PR similar to Assertions for Task and Task<T> with CompleteWithin checks #1013 but you implemented it similar to Task func extensions #1011.

You closed Assertions for Task and Task<T> with CompleteWithin checks #1013 as replaced. But my intention there was the extending Task directly. You extended Func<Task>.

I took your PR and implemented it according to the review comment @jnyrup made here and with which I agreed.

Src/FluentAssertions/AssertionExtensions.cs

Src/FluentAssertions/AggregateExceptionExtractor.cs

Src/FluentAssertions/Common/TaskTimer.cs

Tests/Shared.Specs/AssertionExtensions.cs

dennisdoomen · 2019-05-27T20:05:52Z

I'm pretty sure it could be a binary compatibility issue. I'm not sure I care enough considering this is not an extension point. Outlook voor Android downloaden<https://aka.ms/ghei36>

________________________________ From: Jonas Nyrup <notifications@github.com> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 10:00:28 PM To: fluentassertions/fluentassertions Cc: Dennis Doomen; Author Subject: Re: [fluentassertions/fluentassertions] Assertions for Task and Task<T> with CompleteWithin checks (#1048) @jnyrup commented on this pull request.

________________________________ In Src/FluentAssertions/AssertionExtensions.cs<#1048 (comment)>:

@@ -662,19 +664,19 @@ public static ActionAssertions Should(this Action action)

/// current <see cref="System.Func{Task}"/> . /// </summary> [Pure] - public static AsyncFunctionAssertions Should(this Func<Task> action) + public static NonGenericAsyncFunctionAssertions Should(this Func<Task> action) Wouldn't that other library be able to match it against the base type AsyncFunctionAssertions? Maybe I'm just to tired to review any more code for today. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1048?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAEL2PUCFHG4OZJF4K6NSJDPXQ4VZA5CNFSM4HPUXVDKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFWFIHK3DMKJSXC5LFON2FEZLWNFSXPKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOBZZGWLI#discussion_r287873393>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEL2PVJL3UVWJL762ENLZ3PXQ4VZANCNFSM4HPUXVDA>.

Src/FluentAssertions/Specialized/NonGenericAsyncFunctionAssertions.cs

jnyrup · 2019-05-28T06:16:06Z

Src/FluentAssertions/Specialized/GenericAsyncFunctionAssertions.cs

+        /// <param name="becauseArgs">
+        /// Zero or more objects to format using the placeholders in <see cref="because" />.
+        /// </param>
+        public AndWhichConstraint<GenericAsyncFunctionAssertions<TResult>, Task<TResult>> CompleteWithin(


Could we return TResult instead of Task<TResult>?
That would remove the need in tests to call .Result.

dennisdoomen · 2019-05-28T06:27:25Z

Crap. I was too fast.

jnyrup · 2019-06-07T07:51:43Z

Src/FluentAssertions/Specialized/NonGenericAsyncFunctionAssertions.cs

+        /// <param name="becauseArgs">
+        /// Zero or more objects to format using the placeholders in <see cref="because" />.
+        /// </param>
+        public AndWhichConstraint<AsyncFunctionAssertions, Task> CompleteWithin(


If the other CompleteWithin is changed to
AndWhichConstraint<GenericAsyncFunctionAssertions<TResult>, TResult>
then this should be changed to
AndConstraint<AsyncFunctionAssertions<TResult>>

I don't get it. They both return AndWhichConstraint. One just wraps it in Task.

jnyrup · 2019-06-07T17:31:55Z

I was thinking about using AndWhichConstraint<...,TResult> when the subject is e.g. Func<Task>
and AndConstraint<...> when the Subject is e.g. Func.

I'm vacationing until Monday without a computer, so my responses might be delayed and inferior.

dennisdoomen force-pushed the Rework1013 branch from 4b4fa5e to eae4a19 Compare May 25, 2019 14:43

dennisdoomen requested a review from jnyrup May 25, 2019 14:44

This was referenced May 25, 2019

Assertions for Task and Task<T> with CompleteWithin checks #1013

Closed

Fix for ThrowExactly and ThrowExactlyAsync not working with AggregateExceptions #1046

Merged

Added .NET Standard 1.3 and 1.6 support for NotThrowAfter #1050

Merged

lg2de reviewed May 27, 2019

View reviewed changes

introduced assertions for Task and Task<T> with CompleteWithin checks

d546396

introduce ITimer to abstract real timing in the tests rework after review rework after review Another pass of review.

dennisdoomen force-pushed the Rework1013 branch from eae4a19 to d546396 Compare May 27, 2019 17:52

jnyrup reviewed May 27, 2019

View reviewed changes

Src/FluentAssertions/AssertionExtensions.cs Show resolved Hide resolved

Src/FluentAssertions/AggregateExceptionExtractor.cs Show resolved Hide resolved

Src/FluentAssertions/Common/TaskTimer.cs Show resolved Hide resolved

Tests/Shared.Specs/AssertionExtensions.cs Show resolved Hide resolved

dennisdoomen merged commit 4009f5e into fluentassertions:master May 28, 2019

dennisdoomen deleted the Rework1013 branch May 28, 2019 06:11

jnyrup reviewed May 28, 2019

View reviewed changes

jnyrup reviewed Jun 7, 2019

View reviewed changes

dennisdoomen mentioned this pull request Jun 7, 2019

Rework on async function assertions #1079

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Assertions for Task and Task<T> with CompleteWithin checks #1048

Assertions for Task and Task<T> with CompleteWithin checks #1048

dennisdoomen commented May 25, 2019 •

edited

lg2de commented May 27, 2019 •

edited

lg2de left a comment

lg2de May 27, 2019

dennisdoomen May 27, 2019

lg2de May 28, 2019

dennisdoomen May 28, 2019

lg2de May 28, 2019

lg2de May 27, 2019

dennisdoomen commented May 27, 2019

dennisdoomen commented May 27, 2019 via email

jnyrup May 28, 2019

dennisdoomen commented May 28, 2019

jnyrup Jun 7, 2019 •

edited

dennisdoomen Jun 7, 2019

jnyrup commented Jun 7, 2019

Assertions for Task and Task<T> with CompleteWithin checks #1048

Assertions for Task and Task<T> with CompleteWithin checks #1048

Conversation

dennisdoomen commented May 25, 2019 • edited

lg2de commented May 27, 2019 • edited

lg2de left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dennisdoomen commented May 27, 2019

dennisdoomen commented May 27, 2019 via email

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dennisdoomen commented May 28, 2019

jnyrup Jun 7, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jnyrup commented Jun 7, 2019

dennisdoomen commented May 25, 2019 •

edited

lg2de commented May 27, 2019 •

edited

jnyrup Jun 7, 2019 •

edited