8000 Handle comparing an `IDictionary` subject with an `IDictionary<,>` expectation by ITaluone · Pull Request #2358 · fluentassertions/fluentassertions · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content

Handle comparing an IDictionary subject with an IDictionary<,> expectation#2358

Merged
dennisdoomen merged 2 commits intofluentassertions:developfrom
ITaluone:fix/issue-2308
Oct 14, 2023
Merged

Handle comparing an IDictionary subject with an IDictionary<,> expectation#2358
dennisdoomen merged 2 commits intofluentassertions:developfrom
ITaluone:fix/issue-2308

Conversation

@ITaluone
Copy link
Contributor
@ITaluone ITaluone commented Oct 3, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Fixes: #2308

Note: The very first two commits are to fix the actual problem. Commit 3-6 are for code quality (and therefore can moved to a separate PR if needed).

IMPORTANT

  • If the PR touches the public API, the changes have been approved in a separate issue with the "api-approved" label.
  • The code complies with the Coding Guidelines for C#.
  • The changes are covered by unit tests which follow the Arrange-Act-Assert syntax and the naming conventions such as is used in these tests.
  • If the PR adds a feature or fixes a bug, please update the release notes with a functional description that explains what the change means to consumers of this library, which are published on the website.
  • If the PR changes the public API the changes needs to be included by running AcceptApiChanges.ps1 or AcceptApiChanges.sh.
  • If the PR affects the documentation, please include your changes in this pull request so the documentation will appear on the website.
    • Please also run ./build.sh --target spellcheck or .\build.ps1 --target spellcheck before pushing and check the good outcome

@github-actions
Copy link
github-actions bot commented Oct 3, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Qodana for .NET

It seems all right 👌

No new problems were found according to the checks applied

💡 Qodana analysis was run in the pull request mode: only the changed files were checked

View the detailed Qodana report

To be able to view the detailed Qodana report, you can either:

  1. Register at Qodana Cloud and configure the action
  2. Use GitHub Code Scanning with Qodana
  3. Host Qodana report at GitHub Pages
  4. Inspect and use qodana.sarif.json (see the Qodana SARIF format for details)

To get *.log files or any other Qodana artifacts, run the action with upload-result option set to true,
so that the action will upload the files as the job artifacts:

      - name: 'Qodana Scan'
        uses: JetBrains/qodana-action@v2023.2.6
        with:
          upload-result: true
Contact Qodana team

Contact us at qodana-support@jetbrains.com

@ITaluone
Copy link
Contributor Author
ITaluone commented Oct 3, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Out of curiosity:

Should this test fail or pass?

[Fact]
public void A_enumerable_of_key_value_pairs_and_generic_dict()
{
    var subject = new List<KeyValuePair<string, object>>
    {
        new("id", 22),
        new("CustomerId", 33)
    };

    var expected = new Dictionary<object, object>
    {
        ["id"] = 22,
        ["CustomerId"] = 33
    };

    subject.Should().BeEquivalentTo(expected);
}

Edit: Oh.. it does 🙈 (with KeyValuePair<object, object>)...

@ITaluone ITaluone force-pushed the fix/issue-2308 branch 2 times, most recently from 5dbdcf0 to 03a21cf Compare October 3, 2023 10:07
@coveralls
Copy link
coveralls commented Oct 3, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 6472389490

  • 21 of 21 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.02%) to 97.402%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 6464892225: 0.02%
Covered Lines: 11655
Relevant Lines: 11846
💛 - Coveralls

@ITaluone ITaluone changed the title Handle non-generic dictionary subject when compared with a generic dictionary expectation Handle comparing an IDictionary subject with an IDictionary<,> expectation Oct 3, 2023
@ITaluone ITaluone force-pushed the fix/issue-2308 branch 5 times, most recently from ccef602 to 685f631 Compare October 5, 2023 07:25
@dennisdoomen
Copy link
Member
dennisdoomen commented Oct 8, 2023 •
edited
Loading

The very first two commits are to fix the actual problem. Commit 3-6 are for code quality (and therefore can moved to a separate PR if needed).

It's totally fine to combine the fix and the refactorings in a single PR. But that requires you to ensure that every commit has a clear purpose so that we can review them one by one and we can rebase-merge them. But in your case, it looks like some commits are rework on earlier commits. Same for the "release notes" commit.

dennisdoomen
dennisdoomen requested changes Oct 8, 2023
View reviewed changes
@IT-VBFK
Copy link
Contributor
IT-VBFK commented Oct 8, 2023

But that requires you to ensure that every commit has a clear purpose so that we can review them one by one and we can rebase-merge them. But in your case, it looks like some commits are rework on earlier commits. Same for the "release notes" commit.

How can a refactoring commit be a "non-rework" of previous commits? 🤔

@jnyrup jnyrup added the bug label Oct 8, 2023
@ITaluone
Copy link
Contributor Author
ITaluone commented Oct 8, 2023

@dennisdoomen I have combined all commits to one, because I had no clue, how I could add refactoring commits, but not interfere (or non-rework) with changes in previous commits.

Sorry :/

But I am happy if you could point me into the correct direction (for PRs in future)

@dennisdoomen
Copy link
Member
dennisdoomen commented Oct 8, 2023

Using fixup commits and interactive squashing. See https://www.continuousimprover.com/2020/03/keep-source-control-history-clean.html

jnyrup
jnyrup reviewed Oct 8, 2023
View reviewed changes
@ITaluone ITaluone requested a review from dennisdoomen October 10, 2023 15:40
@github-actions
Copy link
github-actions bot commented Oct 10, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Qodana for .NET

It seems all right 👌

No new problems were found according to the checks applied

💡 Qodana analysis was run in the pull request mode: only the changed files were checked

View the detailed Qodana report

To be able to view the detailed Qodana report, you can either:

  1. Register at Qodana Cloud and configure the action
  2. Use GitHub Code Scanning with Qodana
  3. Host Qodana report at GitHub Pages
  4. Inspect and use qodana.sarif.json (see the Qodana SARIF format for details)

To get *.log files or any other Qodana artifacts, run the action with upload-result option set to true,
so th 8000 at the action will upload the files as the job artifacts:

      - name: 'Qodana Scan'
        uses: JetBrains/qodana-action@v2023.2.8
        with:
          upload-result: true
Contact Qodana team

Contact us at qodana-support@jetbrains.com

@ITaluone ITaluone requested a review from jnyrup October 11, 2023 14:43
jnyrup
jnyrup reviewed Oct 11, 2023
View reviewed changes
ITaluone and others added 2 commits October 11, 2023 17:06
@ITaluone
Handle non-generic dictionary subject when compared with a generic …
24bbd36 
…`dictionary` expectation
@ITaluone @jnyrup
Add release notes
cda8236 
Co-authored-by: Jonas Nyrup <jnyrup@users.noreply.github.com>
@ITaluone ITaluone requested a review from jnyrup October 11, 2023 15:09
This was referenced Feb 6, 2026
Closed
Merged
Open
Merged
Merged
Closed
Closed
This was referenced Feb 15, 2026
Open
Open
Closed
Closed
Open
Open
Closed
Open
Merged
Merged
This was referenced Feb 23, 2026
Closed
Closed
Open
Closed
This was referenced Mar 3, 2026
Merged
Open
Open
Open
Closed
Open
This was referenced Mar 11, 2026
Merged
Closed
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@dennisdoomen dennisdoomen dennisdoomen approved these changes

@jnyrup jnyrup jnyrup approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

bug

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

BeEquivalentTo cannot compare generic and non-generic dictionary

5 participants

@ITaluone @coveralls @dennisdoomen @IT-VBFK @jnyrup
0