Allow using an IEqualityComparer in BeEquivalentTo

Actually, regarding my suggestion, it would also work if you could supply an EqualityComparer for EquivalencyAssertionOptions, or is it already possible? I’m just saying because EqualityComparer is the “standard” .NET way of doing it, and often there is already a suitable equality comparer available that could be reused as is. At least in our case, I like writing EqualityComparers because they nicely encapsulate the equivalency. I don’t like repeating equivalency rules in-line, because usually the same rules are needed in many places. I guess you could encapsulate them as IEquivalencySteps, but why do that if you already have EqualityComparer?

For example

orderDto.Should().BeEquivalentTo(order, options => options
    .Using<DateTimeEqualityComparer>());

or

orderDto.Should().BeEquivalentTo(order, options => options
    .Using<DateTime>(new DateTimeEqualityComparer()));

[codewisdom]

I really like this idea! Agree with @jnyrup that the second is more generic and clearer. I’ve been struggling with comparing types in a homegrown library to C# types. Using the DifferentObjectsEquivalencyStep approach I found on SO has been successful up to a point.

[jnyrup]

I like the second one the most. It’s explicit and generic.

public static void Using<T, TComparer>()
    where TComparer : IEqualityComparer<T>
{
}

or

public static void Using<T>(IEqualityComparer<T> comparer)
{
}

I’m not sure what the signature of the first one would be?

public static void Using<TComparer>()
    where TComparer : IEqualityComparer
{
}

I dislike that as:

• It’s non-generic in the type being compared, I often (if not always) only implement the generic IEqualityComparer<T> and not the non-generic IEqualityComparer
• It not visible from the test which types are being compared using the comparer.

In general I’d like to take Fluent Assertions to a more generic world.