Replacing part of assertion

[jnyrup]

When verifying multiple assertions against the same object, you often combine them with .And.
Currently it seems the codefixer is not aware of this concept.

actual.Should().NotBeNull()
    .And.NotBeEmpty()
    .And.HaveCount(2);

is replaced with

actual.Should().NotBeNullOrEmpty();

[Meir017]

I'm not sure how to approach this feature yet. I opened an issue on the Roslyn project, maybe they have a helper for something like this

dotnet/roslyn#22698

[Meir017]

@jnyrup any idea what the code fix should be in the following case?

actual.Should().NotBeNull("collection should not be null")
    .And.NotBeEmpty("collection should not be empty")
    .And.HaveCount(2);

[jnyrup]

Are you referring to the problem about which becauseArgs to choose when merging NotBeNull and NotBeEmpty?

If it was my own code using FA I would just write:

actual.Should().NotBeNullOrEmpty("collection should not be empty")
    .And.HaveCount(2);

But of course the analyzer needs to be general.
How about this:

• If both NotBeNull and NotBeEmpty has an becauseArgs suggest they could be merged, but without providing a codefix,
• otherwise merge them and there is at most a single becauseArgs.

[Meir017]

Are you referring to the problem about which becauseArgs to choose when merging NotBeNull and NotBeEmpty?

exactly!

@jnyrup just came up with a way to do the replacement - here is a snippet https://gist.github.com/Meir017/48eef45a5b2525ce21ff12de0bae5dc0 how weird is this? ;)

I tried using DocumentEditor as mentioned in the stackoverflow post but after the second replacement if threw a NullReferenceException since it couldn't find the second node after the first replacement

[Meir017]

started work on the branch feature/replacing-part-of-assertion

[jnyrup]

Sounds great!
My colleagues are already eager to know when they can start using this tool.

[Meir017]

@jnyrup 0.4.0 is up on NuGet now