Fix assertions Without*** when there are multiple failures (#1937) #1938
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
For assertions in a form of
Without***
we need to use only failures that are matching to previously applied predicates (such as property name). Otherwise, we are treating failures for other properties as violating current assertion.Example:
Name must not be empty
Surname must not be empty
results.ShouldHaveValidationErrorFor(x => x.Surname)
has Failure 1 inUnmatchingFailures
and Failure 2 inMatchingFailures
. If we then add a predicate.WithoutErrorCode("foo")
and apply it to all failures (as we did before), then Failure 1 will be considered a violation. In this PR we changeWhenAll
to only considerMatchingFailures
- and Failure 1 does not have effect.Similar logic applies to
With***
assertions: when they are multiple failing rules and one of the expectations was not met (for ex.,WithMessage
specifies a wrong text) we should be usingMatchingFailures
to correctly display a validation messsage.Fixes #1937