naming

Feb 25, 2011 at 1:35 AM

How if the name of the method is changed to AreEquals to avoid the misunderstanding.

  • from an existing framework is helped.
  • person who doesn't know this is a legible, friendly name.
  • meaning misunderstanding with "is" of the keyword is avoided.

a comprehensible description might come to be able to be done to a negative verification by the conclusion by adding AreNotEquals.

 

Feb 25, 2011 at 3:20 AM

All members of Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.Assert should be examined the necessity, and work as/by an appropriate context.

ex.

actual.Is(excepted);
actual.Is(true); 
actual.Is(expr => object.ReferenceEquals(excepted, expr));
actual.Is(typeof(Excepted).IsInstanceOfType);
actual.Is(typeof(Excepted).IsAssignableFrom);
vs. 
 
actual.IsEquals(excepted); // Assert.AreEquals
actual.IsTrue(); // Assert.IsTrue
actual.IsSame(excepted); // Assert.AreSame
actual.Is(); // Assert.IsInstanceOfType
actual.Is(type); // Assert.IsInstanceOfType
actual.As(); // check assignable...
Coordinator
Feb 28, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Thanks.

I referred to your suggestion very much.

I considered the compatibility and added it in v1.1 as follows.

Is
IsNot
IsNull
IsNotNull
IsInstanceOf
IsNotInstanceOf
IsSameReferenceAs
IsNotSameReferenceAs

it is the result that it was troubled with.