Add Should().All() feature

I very often want to make an assertion about every member of a collection. You can use .Should().OnlyContain() but I’d like to be able to use your lovely library of helper assertions.

e.g. I’d like to be able to write: myStrings.Should().All().StartWith("Hello");

It feels like it ought to be relatively achievable? Roughly speaking .All() would need to return an object that looked the same as a .Should() of the Collection contents but which passes all of its implementations down to an inner .Should() against each of the elements.

First Question: Would you be happy with this functionality existing?

Second Question: Is this something that you’d be likely to implement any time soon? If not, would you accept a PR for it? And do you think such a change would be tractable to an experienced .NET programmer who’s never looked inside your codebase before?

[Brondahl]

Some other viable-but-a-bit-dissappointing solutions exist here:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18899755/how-to-assert-all-items-in-a-collection-using-fluent-assertions

The .Select() and .ForEach() forms even give access to the assertion helpers. But I think the above proposal is much more inline with the “Fluent” goal of this library, is a LOT more discoverable, and would be much more pleasant all-round.

[dennisdoomen]

No worries. Life of an open-source developers is unpredictable at best.

I don’t think we should go in that direction. It will create quite a maintenance burden for the future. Maybe a Should().AllSatisfy is a better alternative.