CleanArchitecture VS xUnit

Looking at this, it has similar aspects as ASP.NET Core, and the same flaws as the Controller per class design used. Methods such as "create", "show" and "store" do not share a state, they shouldn't share a class either.

However, you can rectify this, by just not trying to share a class with any of those. In .NET Steve Smith, aka Ardalis shows how to do this with his Clean architecture idea [1], Idea is to make a class for each endpoint. This also makes it easier for "Update" classes to share functionality with other "Update" classes and so on.

[1]: https://github.com/ardalis/CleanArchitecture/tree/main/sampl...

🔴 [CleanArchitecture] (Learning Template + Docs): A starting point for Clean Architecture with ASP.NET Core. Clean Architecture is just the latest in a series of names for the same loosely-coupled, dependency-inverted architecture.

Here’s a few: - complex domain driven example using vertical slice - another DDD example - clean architecture template by Jason taylor - clean architecture template by ardalis

This repository is a good place to start with modern c# code, specifically ASP.NET

https://github.com/ardalis/CleanArchitecture

If you want to try clean architecture, you can check out Steve smith’s repo or Jason Taylor’s repo.

🔗 Clean Architecture repository | GitHub

Neovolve.Logging.Xunit written by Rory Primrose is a NuGet package that provides an ILogger or ILogger, which integrates with the ITestOutputHelper used by xUnit. This helper enables log messages to be written directly to the test output during each test execution. As a result, any log messages from the tested classes are included in the xUnit test result output.

In light of these changes, developers have several options moving forward. The simplest short-term solution is to lock dependencies to Fluent Assertions version 7, which remains under the Apache 2.0 license and allows free commercial use; for those seeking alternatives, libraries like Shouldly offer similar functionality with a fluent interface, while testing frameworks like xUnit, NUnit, and MSTest provide built-in assertion APIs that can serve as replacements.

Add an analyzer which recommends nameof usage #2991

The first task for me was to figure out what testing framework had been used by Libplanet, and after going through their Contribution.md, I found that the library uses Xunit.net for testing purposes. I have worked with Xunit before, so it was not new to me. I tried building the project locally, but I got an error saying the project was using .NET 6, and my PC had .NET 8. As a result, I installed .NET 6. After that, I made the changes and tried running the unit tests. Initially, I was confused because I was looking for TestUtils in the test output but couldn’t find it. After some time, I realized that TestUtils is a utility class used by other unit tests, and I found some tests that used TestUtils in their code. The code worked as expected, so I messaged on the issue with the new code, and the repo maintainer asked me to submit a PR.

xUnit provides a more modern approach to unit testing with fewer constraints.

20. XUnit

Several well-known NuGet packages such as xUnit.net, FluentAssertions, StyleCop, Entity Framework Core, and others include by default a significant number of Roslyn analyzers. They help you adhere to the conventions and best practices of these libraries.

Most of my rules apply to document types, so let's build some tests for document types. We start by creating a new test class and a new test function and getting a list of all document types. This test is created using xUnit and FluentAssertions: