Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Provide opt-out to `AssertionOptions(o => o.WithStrictOrdering())` #974
This handles #966
Added the following configuration options:
I'm a bit unsure about
Personally, it seems risky to have
from a usage perspective I'd prefer this.
I agree that
I'm not sure about
IMHO you can't.
Hence I agree that
Will do, thanks for the hint.
would result in strict ordering for everything but
Now the same configuration results in strict ordering for everything.
Request for Decision
Personally I'd like the 1st option as it's how I expected FA to behave, but of course you might have a different opinion. Also, 1st option is a breaking change, the others aren't. I wouldn't go with the 3rd option though.
I agree that option 1 is the best.
I would expect the following two equivalences:
.WithoutStrictOrderingFor(x => x.Foo) .WithStrictOrdering(); // to be equivalent to .WithStrictOrdering();
.WithStrictOrderingFor(x => x.Foo) .WithoutStrictOrdering(); // to be equivalent to .WithoutStrictOrdering();
We apparently only have a single test for each of
I'm not really sure I understand what you mean.
To my surprise you're right.
My comment about a single test was regarding the existing test coverage for variants of