Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Convention VerifyChecks per project instead of solution #1313

Closed
jerone opened this issue Oct 6, 2024 · 3 comments
Closed

Convention VerifyChecks per project instead of solution #1313

jerone opened this issue Oct 6, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@jerone
Copy link
Contributor

jerone commented Oct 6, 2024

Is the feature request related to a problem

When running await VerifyChecks.Run();, it will throw out the following exception:

VerifyCheckException
Expected .gitIgnore to contain settings for Verify.
Path: file:///C:/Sources/<project>/.gitIgnore
Recommended settings:

# Verify
*.received.*
*.received/

I noticed that the convention VerifyChecks are run on the solution, instead of the corresponding test project.

It is not always possible to alter/create solution files.
In my case it was the .gitignore file.

To comply to the Source Control Includes/Excludes convention, I created a .gitignore file in the test project.
This works perfectly, as I only intent to have Verify run in this test project.
It does however throw above exception when running the VerifyChecks :(

Describe the solution

I hope the convention checks could be run both on the project and then on the solution.

Describe alternatives considered

Additional context

This is related to the EditorConfig & GitAttributes conventions checks too, as all of them are inherited files.

Note that the docs never say to apply the conventions to the solution, instead of the test project.

@SimonCropp
Copy link
Member

happy to consider a pull request that fixes this

@jerone
Copy link
Contributor Author

jerone commented Jan 5, 2025

@SimonCropp In which version is this issue/FR completed?

I tried "Verify.Xunit" version 28.7.1 with same result.

@SimonCropp
Copy link
Member

i assume since there was no PR that you didnt need it anymore. so i closed the issue

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants