Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.
And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.
Using Should for unit test assertions
See original GitHub issueI’ve been contributing to this project writing some unit tests and I was wondering if we would be interested in using the Should assertion library.
I love using Should and I find myself missing it greatly when writing tests in the old Assert.Equal(expectation, actual) way.
The library allows you to use extension methods to make your assertions. The syntax is actual.ShouldEqual(expectation). This eliminates the need to remember the order of the arguments in the assertion. It also allows you to use intellisense to find assertions for the type that you are testing easily.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 8 years ago
- Comments:9 (6 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Top Related Medium Post
Top Related StackOverflow Question
Troubleshoot Live Code
Top Related Reddit Thread
Top Related Hackernoon Post
Top Related Tweet
Top Related Dev.to Post
Top Related Hashnode Post
let’s keep with Shouldly as it is current in our codebase as you said @stevejgordon
@tonysurma We have Shoudly in place already and it’s used it a fair number of tests, therefore I would propose we stick with that so we have a single library in use. I’ve used both and the differences seem to be negligible.
If you’re happy, I would propose we close this?