Remove CallerArgumentExpression

fluentassertions · Dec 30, 2022 · bfb399c · bfb399c
1 parent 3b134c9
commit bfb399c
Show file tree

Hide file tree

Showing 3 changed files with 4 additions and 14 deletions.
diff --git a/Src/FluentAssertions/Primitives/BooleanAssertions.cs b/Src/FluentAssertions/Primitives/BooleanAssertions.cs
@@ -123,7 +123,6 @@ public AndConstraint<TAssertions> NotBe(bool unexpected, string because = "", pa
     /// Asserts that the value implies the specified <paramref name="consequent"/> value.
     /// </summary>
     /// <param name="consequent">The right hand side for the implication</param>
-    /// <remarks>If you want to use the `because` / `becauseArgs` construct, it is **necessary** to use the caller argument expression, because this would lead to unexpected failure messages, when omitted!</remarks>
     /// <param name="because">
     /// A formatted phrase as is supported by <see cref="string.Format(string,object[])" /> explaining why the assertion
     /// is needed. If the phrase does not start with the word <i>because</i>, it is prepended automatically.
@@ -132,7 +131,6 @@ public AndConstraint<TAssertions> NotBe(bool unexpected, string because = "", pa
     /// Zero or more objects to format using the placeholders in <paramref name="because"/>.
     /// </param>
     public AndConstraint<TAssertions> Imply(bool consequent,
-        [CallerArgumentExpression(nameof(consequent))] string consequentMessage = "",
         string because = "",
         params object[] becauseArgs)
     {
@@ -141,7 +139,7 @@ public AndConstraint<TAssertions> NotBe(bool unexpected, string because = "", pa
         Execute.Assertion
             .ForCondition(antecedent is not null)
             .BecauseOf(because, becauseArgs)
-            .WithExpectation($"Expected {{context:antecedent}} ({{0}}) to imply {consequentMessage} ({{1}}){{reason}}, ", antecedent, consequent)
+            .WithExpectation($"Expected {{context:antecedent}} ({{0}}) to imply consequent ({{1}}){{reason}}, ", antecedent, consequent)
             .FailWith("but found null.")
             .Then
             .ForCondition(!antecedent.Value || consequent)

diff --git a/Tests/FluentAssertions.Specs/Primitives/BooleanAssertionSpecs.cs b/Tests/FluentAssertions.Specs/Primitives/BooleanAssertionSpecs.cs
@@ -195,11 +195,11 @@ public void Subject_implies_implicator(bool? antecedent, bool consequent)
         public void Subject_does_not_imply_implicator(bool? antecedent, bool consequent)
         {
             // Act
-            Action act = () => antecedent.Should().Imply(consequent, nameof(consequent), "because we want to test the {0}", "failure");
+            Action act = () => antecedent.Should().Imply(consequent, "because we want to test the {0}", "failure");
 
             // Assert
             act.Should().Throw<XunitException>()
-                .WithMessage("Expected*to imply consequent*test the failure*but*");
+                .WithMessage("Expected antecedent*to imply consequent*test the failure*but*");
         }
     }
 }
diff --git a/docs/_pages/booleans.md b/docs/_pages/booleans.md
@@ -28,12 +28,4 @@ Implication: see [here](https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Implies.html)
 ```csharp
 bool anotherBoolean = true;
 theBoolean.Should().Imply(anotherBoolean);
-```
-
-Passing a custom caller argument expression is beneficial for this assertion to get the second parameter name in the failure message
-```csharp
-bool anotherBoolean = true;
-theBoolean.Should().Imply(anotherBoolean, nameof(anotherBoolean));
-```
-
-If you want to use the `because` / `becauseArgs` construct, it is **necessary** to use the caller argument expression, because this would lead to unexpected failure messages, when omitted!
+```