Frode Flaten

Thanks! Finally done with this conflict-magnet 😄 🎉

Good catch. Even the official NUnit packages like NUnit.Extension.NUnitV2ResultWriter for nunit3-console does it like Pester and doesn't comply with the resultsType-choice in the schema. Not sure if/when we will fix...

Thanks for the feedback. Empty testcases (count 0) is a legit scenario when using data-driven/generated tests, so failing that would be wrong imo. If an option would be added, I'd...

So only `Should -Not -HaveParameter abc` (no other parameters) should pass if the parameter is actually missing? While if `-Alias/Mandatory/etc` is also used we expect the parameter itself to exist,...

> Just adding -NotMandatory would fix the problem. I agree. We're unable block `-NotMandatory -Mandatory` now due to how `Should` works, but I'll add this to the milestone for new...

> Would it work saying `Should -HaveParameter -Mandatory:$false` 🤔 Atm. no, but it's a valid suggestion. We do inherit a `$BoundParameters`-dictionary in the function, so we could technically separate undefined...

> > `Should -HaveParameter -Mandatory:$false` > > Supporting this would enable the following structure for -ForEach tests: > > ```powershell > It 'Has parameter ' -TestCases @( > @{ Name...

Yeah, you're absolutely right. Looked at the wrong sample when I answered.

Looking for feedback: - Throw vs failure message? - Should we stick with `Where-Object Parameters` workaround for both scenarios to keep it simple?

> There is no such option, but I was proposing to do it by *, if there is a need to do that. Seems logical as an option in `Should...