Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 11520540879

Details

• 20 of 20 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.02%) to 97.625%

Totals
Change from base Build 11501172209:	0.02%
Covered Lines:	12205
Relevant Lines:	12378

💛 - Coveralls

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

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

I don't know or recall why #1416 used SubsequentOrderingAssertions in GenericCollectionAssertions instead of SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions.
The latter retains TCollection whereas the former uses IEnumerable<T> which TCollection is constrained to.

Could we use SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions instead of SubsequentOrderingAssertions?

Could we use SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions instead of SubsequentOrderingAssertions?

I don't have any preference regarding the naming. I was simply wondering why it needed so many levels of inheritance and could find no reason for it. Should I rename SubsequentOrderingAssertions to SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions?

Could we use SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions instead of SubsequentOrderingAssertions?

I don't have any preference regarding the naming. I was simply wondering why it needed so many levels of inheritance and could find no reason for it. Should I rename SubsequentOrderingAssertions to SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions?

Not sure I get you.
I didn't mean rename SubsequentOrderingAssertions to SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions, but let the relevant assertions in GenericCollectionAssertions return SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions instead of SubsequentOrderingAssertions.

Not sure I get you.
I didn't mean rename SubsequentOrderingAssertions to SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions, but let the relevant assertions in GenericCollectionAssertions return SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions instead of SubsequentOrderingAssertions.

That would practically be the same. All methods were in one class and all other classes were empty. I chose SubsequentOrderingAssertions to keep (move all logic inside and remove the inheritance). Alternatively I could keep the logic in SubsequentOrderingGenericCollectionAssertions and replace all references of SubsequentOrderingAssertions with it.

I expected the first change to have less chance of breaking things, as I don't change the return type of existing methods. That was my reason for choosing this way...

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

@jnyrup I think this is waiting for you, isn't it?

What is the state of this one?

I'm not sure. It's more a refactoring change missing a review from @jnyrup.

I can rebase the branch, or abandon the PR.

Please consider rebasing on develop

Please consider rebasing on develop

Oh, wow, you finished your big PR 😊

@dennisdoomen : I am not sure, why the Qodana build failed, but it seems not to be related with my changes...

I am not sure, why the Qodana build failed, but it seems not to be related with my changes...

Something is wrong with the commit SHA we pass. Somebody at JetBrains is getting some confirmation for me.