New Post: Comparing two similar objects fails

October 16, 2012, 12:23 am

≫ Next: New Post: Comparing two similar objects fails

≪ Previous: New Post: Comparing two similar objects fails

$

0

0

FieldOffset is a property of class DieCorner:

    [Serializable]
    public class DieCorner: Entity
    {
        public DieCorner()
        {
        }

        public DieCorner(ImageData imageData, WaferPosition waferPosition)
        {
            Image = imageData;
            Position = waferPosition;
        }
        
        public WaferPosition Position { get; set; }

        public FieldOffset InFieldOffset { get; set; }

        public ImageData Image { get; set; }
    }

 

The comparison is done like this:

convertedGeometry.DieCorner.ShouldHave().AllProperties().EqualTo(expectedGeometry.DieCorner);

What am I missing?

Thanks!

---

New Post: Comparing two similar objects fails

October 16, 2012, 1:13 am

≫ Next: New Post: Comparing two similar objects fails

≪ Previous: New Post: Comparing two similar objects fails

$

0

0

I think I got it, is it because the FieldOffset is a reference type and the references are being compared?

IncludeNestedProperties() should be added, correct?

What if i have multiple levels of nesting, and deep down there are couple of collections, how should I caompare the collections? will IncludeNestedProperties() work, or should I use .AllPropertiesBut(collection) and then compare the collection explicitly? 

Thanks!

New Post: Comparing two similar objects fails

October 16, 2012, 3:52 am

≫ Next: New Post: Should().Equal() vs Assert.AreEqual on empty collections

≪ Previous: New Post: Comparing two similar objects fails

$

0

0

Correct. If you don't specify the IncludeNestedProperties(), it will use the object.Equals() method to compare two objects. So if you don't explicitly override that method, it will use reference comparison by default.

Also notice that FA 2.0 introduces a completely new API that is recursive by default:

http://www.dennisdoomen.net/2012/09/asserting-object-graph-equivalence.html

New Post: Should().Equal() vs Assert.AreEqual on empty collections

October 16, 2012, 7:43 am

≫ Next: New Post: Should().Equal() vs Assert.AreEqual on empty collections

≪ Previous: New Post: Comparing two similar objects fails

$

0

0

I'm struggling with something. I'm looking to verify that two empty lists refer to the same object:

    var liste1 = new List<string>();
    var liste2 = new List<string>();
    (liste1 == liste2).Should().BeFalse();
    liste1.Should().Equal(liste2);   // This one passes, but I thought it was using Object.Equals ?
    Assert.AreEqual(liste1, liste2); // This one fails, which is what I want in this case 

Is there another Fluent method I could use to compare the two references?

            var liste1 = new List<string>();
            var liste2 = new List<string>();
            (liste1 == liste2).Should().BeFalse();
            liste1.Should().Equal(liste2);   // This one passes, but I thought it was using Object.Equals ?
            Assert.AreEqual(liste1, liste2); // This one fails, which is what I want in this case

New Post: Should().Equal() vs Assert.AreEqual on empty collections

October 16, 2012, 9:36 am

≫ Next: New Post: Should().Equal() vs Assert.AreEqual on empty collections

≪ Previous: New Post: Should().Equal() vs Assert.AreEqual on empty collections

$

0

0

Should().Equal() will compare the individual items within the two collections, but doesn't care about the collection type itself. Unfortunately, we don't have the Should().BeSameAs() on the collection, unless you do something like liste1.Should<object>().BeSameAs(liste2);

New Post: Should().Equal() vs Assert.AreEqual on empty collections

October 17, 2012, 6:00 am

≫ Next: Source code checked in, #1ee4840c4a15

≪ Previous: New Post: Should().Equal() vs Assert.AreEqual on empty collections

$

0

0

Thanks!

Source code checked in, #1ee4840c4a15

October 23, 2012, 11:59 am

≫ Next: Created Issue: BeOfTypeImplements to test IEnumerable instead of specific implementation (list/dictionary) [12463]

≪ Previous: New Post: Should().Equal() vs Assert.AreEqual on empty collections

$

0

0

Minor rework while reviewing a pull request.

Created Issue: BeOfTypeImplements to test IEnumerable instead of specific implementation (list/dictionary) [12463]

October 31, 2012, 8:32 am

≫ Next: Source code checked in, #729db4bd1a6e

≪ Previous: Source code checked in, #1ee4840c4a15

$

0

0

Unit tests for my controller include type validation of the model.
I first attempted:
ViewResult.Model.Should().BeOfType<IEnumerable<model>>()

but it failed, stating that the type is List<model>
This is true, but I don't want to worry about that during my testing... I just need to verify that the model is IEnumerable

As a result, I must use:
ViewResult.Model.GetType().Implements<IEnumerable<model>>().Should().BeTrue()

I would prefer something along the lines of:
- some sort of optional parameter for the BeOfType() to allow classes that inherit/implement T
or
- BeOfTypeImplementing<>


PS: keep up the great work... FA is probably my most frequently used nuget package :)

---

Source code checked in, #729db4bd1a6e

November 3, 2012, 5:59 am

≫ Next: Commented Issue: BeOfTypeImplements to test IEnumerable instead of specific implementation (list/dictionary) [12463]

≪ Previous: Created Issue: BeOfTypeImplements to test IEnumerable instead of specific implementation (list/dictionary) [12463]

$

0

0

Added UpgradeLog.htm file to gitignore

Commented Issue: BeOfTypeImplements to test IEnumerable instead of specific implementation (list/dictionary) [12463]

November 3, 2012, 6:16 am

≫ Next: Source code checked in, #235a83293bdc

≪ Previous: Source code checked in, #729db4bd1a6e

$

0

0

Unit tests for my controller include type validation of the model.
I first attempted:
ViewResult.Model.Should().BeOfType<IEnumerable<model>>()

but it failed, stating that the type is List<model>
This is true, but I don't want to worry about that during my testing... I just need to verify that the model is IEnumerable

As a result, I must use:
ViewResult.Model.GetType().Implements<IEnumerable<model>>().Should().BeTrue()

I would prefer something along the lines of:
- some sort of optional parameter for the BeOfType() to allow classes that inherit/implement T
or
- BeOfTypeImplementing<>


PS: keep up the great work... FA is probably my most frequently used nuget package :)
Comments: You can use BeAssignableTo<> for that. Like this: ViewResult.Model.Should().BeAssignableTo<IEnumerable<model>>();

Source code checked in, #235a83293bdc

November 5, 2012, 1:31 pm

≫ Next: Source code checked in, #1730c0c30686

≪ Previous: Commented Issue: BeOfTypeImplements to test IEnumerable instead of specific implementation (list/dictionary) [12463]

$

0

0

Fixed the WindowsPhone build

Source code checked in, #1730c0c30686

November 5, 2012, 1:34 pm

≫ Next: Source code checked in, #f12adb828cdd

≪ Previous: Source code checked in, #235a83293bdc

$

0

0

Merge https://git01.codeplex.com/forks/ndroe/fluentassertions

Source code checked in, #f12adb828cdd

November 5, 2012, 1:51 pm

≫ Next: Source code checked in, #046526cd01c2

≪ Previous: Source code checked in, #1730c0c30686

$

0

0

Removed duplicate implementations of some TypeExtensions.

Source code checked in, #046526cd01c2

November 5, 2012, 2:01 pm

≫ Next: New Post: DateTimeOffset

≪ Previous: Source code checked in, #f12adb828cdd

$

0

0

Created an extension method GetMethodNamed(string methodName) on Type, to abstract the distinction between WinRT and other projects. Updated a small number of the usages.

New Post: DateTimeOffset

November 9, 2012, 1:03 pm

≫ Next: Created Issue: DateTimeOffset support [12464]

≪ Previous: Source code checked in, #046526cd01c2

$

0

0

It would be great if FA supported DateTimeOffset in the same way it supported DateTime.

---

Created Issue: DateTimeOffset support [12464]

November 11, 2012, 10:21 am

≫ Next: New Post: DateTimeOffset

≪ Previous: New Post: DateTimeOffset

$

0

0

It would be great if FA supported DateTimeOffset in the same way it supported DateTime.

New Post: DateTimeOffset

November 11, 2012, 10:21 am

≫ Next: New Post: Access to EventRecorder

≪ Previous: Created Issue: DateTimeOffset support [12464]

$

0

0

This discussion has been copied to a work item. Click here to go to the work item and continue the discussion.

New Post: Access to EventRecorder

November 12, 2012, 8:36 am

≫ Next: Created Issue: Access to EventRecorder [12465]

≪ Previous: New Post: DateTimeOffset

$

0

0

Hi,

Would you consider making to possible to get the EventRecorder for an object and event, so that it is possible to write custom assertions. Without having to save the IEnumerable<EventRecorder> when calling MonitorEvents?

Best regards

Kim

Created Issue: Access to EventRecorder [12465]

November 12, 2012, 11:12 am

≫ Next: New Post: Access to EventRecorder

≪ Previous: New Post: Access to EventRecorder

$

0

0

Hi,

Would you consider making to possible to get the EventRecorder for an object and event, so that it is possible to write custom assertions. Without having to save the IEnumerable<EventRecorder> when calling MonitorEvents?

Best regards

Kim

New Post: Access to EventRecorder

November 12, 2012, 11:12 am

≫ Next: Created Issue: Output text of a collection assertion should be more friendly [12466]

≪ Previous: Created Issue: Access to EventRecorder [12465]

$

0

0

This discussion has been copied to a work item. Click here to go to the work item and continue the discussion.