Skip to content
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

More testing of guarding methods

merged 2 commits into from Apr 16, 2022


Copy link

@jnyrup jnyrup commented Apr 15, 2022


  • 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
  • If the PR affects the documentation, please include your changes in this pull request so the documentation will appear on the website.

Found that we didn't have fake Should overloads for DateTime[Offset]RangeAssertions since they don't have real Should overloads, but are always constructed from DateTime[Offset]Assertions.

I've also added code-coverage tests of guarding Equals methods right below Assertions_classes_override_equals which tests that bool Equals(object obj) is overridden.

@jnyrup jnyrup requested a review from dennisdoomen Apr 15, 2022
@jnyrup jnyrup changed the title Fake should More testing of guarding methods Apr 15, 2022
Copy link

coveralls commented Apr 15, 2022

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 2171994070

  • 2 of 2 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.06%) to 95.229%

Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 2171653108: 0.06%
Covered Lines: 8175
Relevant Lines: 8465

💛 - Coveralls

Copy link

IT-VBFK commented Apr 15, 2022

Is this PR meant to be instead of #1889 ?

Copy link
Member Author

jnyrup commented Apr 15, 2022

Is this PR meant to be instead of #1889 ?

Yes, Except the last test you wrote with null matching.

Copy link

IT-VBFK commented Apr 15, 2022

ok.. then I will remove this form the PR

@jnyrup jnyrup merged commit 94dd522 into fluentassertions:develop Apr 16, 2022
1 check passed
@jnyrup jnyrup deleted the FakeShould branch Apr 16, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet
None yet

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants