Jonas Nyrup

I am open for this, we just need to agree on the expected logic. One definition could be: Two nullable `DateTime(Offset)`s are *close* if and only if: * they both...

For a unit test where one are in control of the expectation, a nullable overload makes little sense to me, but it may be useful when comparing object graphs. ```c#...

@dennisdoomen I'm not sure I get you. If I want to assert a `subject` against a fixed value, I would use the existing `BeCloseTo(DateTime nearbyTime)`.

Ran the mutation tests again since Stryker has evolved over the past two years and our test suite should be completely free of timing dependencies now. All mutators enabled [complete.zip](https://github.com/fluentassertions/fluentassertions/files/6836569/complete.zip)...

Did a new run of mutation testing [mutation-report.zip](https://github.com/fluentassertions/fluentassertions/files/8191148/mutation-report.zip) Again I chose all mutations minus string+linq mutations and using the net5.0 TFM. The new report is not 1:1 comparable with previous...

Since I pointed `Data` out earlier, I wanted to show how #1814 improved the case, which it did. I used a newer version of Stryker that has a different baseline,...

Total score: 85.89% [mutation-report.zip](https://github.com/fluentassertions/fluentassertions/files/9389837/mutation-report.zip)

I'm good with it. I like static analysis 👍

I'm not familiar with ReSharper's nullability analysis, but can it reuse the upcoming nullable reference types from C# 8? I've been playing with those with great success: #1039

None of the existing assertions in `StringAssertions.cs` take a `StringComparison` parameter. Instead we provide `EquivalentOf`/`EquivalentTo` overloads that use `StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase` underneath. E.g. `ContainEquivalentOf` and `NotContainEquivalentOf`. I'm fine with adding `EquivalentOf` equivalents...