Juliano Leal Goncalves
Juliano Leal Goncalves
Was there any further discussions on this since January? This default is so bad that it basically enforces every application to change it otherwise telemetry info becomes nearly impossible to...
> To set the name from `unknown_service` to something descriptive: > > ``` > public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services) > { > // ... snip ... > services.AddOpenTelemetryTracing((builder) => { >...
Should a mention be added that new _metrics_ and _traces_ exporters should be created (but not logs)? Exporting logs, which can already leverage `ILogger`, to another `ILogger` would probably not...
Another possibility for this would be to convert it into a normal collection assertion with something like: ```csharp action.Should().Throw().WhoseInnerExceptionChain.Should().Contain(); ``` This would be similar to the `WhoseValue` used in places...
> Or using the neat little thing called `OccurrenceConstraint` 😎 > > so this would then be for example: > > ```cs > action.Should().Throw().WhoseInnerExceptionChain.Should().HaveElementsOfType(Exactly.Once()); // for both > ``` >...
> Was introduced in #1145 3 years ago That's..... very surprising. Makes me wonder why it is used so sparingly. I imagine some methods could be deprecated in favor of...
> ...if it was named SatisfyInOrder instead of SatisfyRespectively. That would also fit with the already existing ContainInOrder, which is not called ContainRespectively. This is a great point IMHO. Having...
> The AssertionScope was introduced after the chaining was made possible. Ah, got it. An option here would be to expose both an `And` and a `Then` "operator". `Then`, as...
@dennisdoomen , was wondering if you've got any updates on this. Would it be possible to introduce this new semantic as a breaking change in a future version?
> Or we decide to not support chaining... From a consumer perspective, I think that's fair @dennisdoomen . In my experience, most assertions are single checks, so getting minimal support...