Steven Weerdenburg

Agreed, this is unfortunate. Should `default(ImmutableArray)` be treated as semantically equivalent to `Empty` or to `null`? NUnit makes a distinction between these for reference-type collections: ```csharp string[] expected = Array.Empty();...

I'm unsure if there's still interest in this getting fixed, but I noticed that we solved a similar case in the `EqualConstraint` for `ArraySegment` in the past in #477

I haven't checked the scenarios described in https://github.com/nunit/nunit/issues/477#issuecomment-73454620 for `ImmutableArray` but if they _don't hold_ here then I'm wondering if this should be closed given the presence of `Is.Default` and...

I agree that NUnit special casing "empty" doesn't make sense here. I'm a little less sure about the "Equivalent" case. Perhaps it's just me, but I've always thought of NUnit...

I think that's a nice easy win for the happy path here, for all types :) If we're in agreement on approach here for the equivalent scenario, I'd like to...

Thanks @mr-sergito ! We'd definitely welcome your contribution here. That's right :) Effectively we'd be adding a "fast path" here where, if `EqualityComparer.Default.Equals()` returns true would then allow us to...

I'm in favor of that too. I suspect most usages here seek happy path "is equivalent" behavior which this now permits. An equivalency test receiving a default + non-default ImmutableArray...

@nunit/framework-team Looking for thoughts on timing here. Given that `Is.EqualTo()` returns `EqualConstraint` then I think this could be added in a non-breaking way if we extended `EqualConstraint` like so: ```...

I see them serving different, complimentary needs myself. For example, two ValueTuples of `(int, string)` would have the individual properties compared as part of NUnit equality checks. For such a...

Agreed! I think our PRs tackle different use cases and needs. However, as both our PRs would either benefit from or require breaking changes to implement, I'd been hoping to...