EnumAssertions.Be() doesn't identify the subject (but its NotBe() counterpart does)

[jasonsparc]

I decided to look at the source code after finding out that my enum assertions weren't identifying the subject name when using Be(), and yet it is identified correctly when using NotBe().

Apparently, in EnumAssertions.Be() (see line 60), {context:the enum} was not being used:

fluentassertions/Src/FluentAssertions/Primitives/EnumAssertions.cs

Lines 55 to 64 in 418a405

	public AndConstraint<TAssertions> Be(TEnum expected, string because = "", params object[] becauseArgs)
	{
	Execute.Assertion
	.ForCondition(Subject?.Equals(expected) == true)
	.BecauseOf(because, becauseArgs)
	.FailWith("Expected the enum to be {0}{reason}, but found {1}.",
	expected, Subject);
	return new AndConstraint<TAssertions>((TAssertions)this);
	}

This doesn't match the counterpart NotBe() (see line 105):

fluentassertions/Src/FluentAssertions/Primitives/EnumAssertions.cs

Lines 99 to 108 in 418a405

	public AndConstraint<TAssertions> NotBe(TEnum unexpected, string because = "",
	params object[] becauseArgs)
	{
	Execute.Assertion
	.ForCondition(Subject?.Equals(unexpected) != true)
	.BecauseOf(because, becauseArgs)
	.FailWith("Expected {context:the enum} not to be {0}{reason}, but it is.", unexpected);
	return new AndConstraint<TAssertions>((TAssertions)this);
	}

The above are permalinks but the issue currently exists in both the develop and master branches.

[jasonsparc]

Also, I think the failure message for NotBe() would be better if instead of "Expected the enum not to be …", it was rather "Expected the enum to not be …" – I'm not a native English speaker btw, so it could be just me that I find the wording weird, but it might be a typo, so I'm reporting it also just in case.

Actual current output in my tests:

Expected state not to be DisposeState.DisposedFully {value: 7} because `HandleDisposeRequest() == false`, but it is.

[dennisdoomen]

Also, I think the failure message for NotBe() would be better if instead of "Expected the enum not to be …", it was rather "Expected the enum to not be …"

You're right. That's better.

[jnyrup]

We have a "not to be" or "to not be" discussion somewhere, but I can't find it right now.

Just for the record, we're using "not to be" most places.

• not to be: 77 occurrences
• to not be: 19 occurrences

[dennisdoomen]

#1340

We should change that thing into a page on www.fluentassertions.com

[jnyrup]

Found it, I was looking for #713 and #620.