Stryker.NET VS Shouldly

Bogus - For creating fake data Verify - Snapshot testing for .NET MELT - For testing ILogger usage Stryker - Mutation Testing for .NET TestContainers - run docker programmatically in integration tests

This is called mutation testing btw.

Let's try it on our small example using Stryker.

There are tools that do this automatically, stryker[2] is one of them. When you run stryker, it will create many mutant versions of your production code, and run your tests for each mutant (that's how mutations are called in stryker's' documentation) version of the code. If your tests fail then the mutant is killed. If your tests passed, the mutant survived. Let's have a look at the the result of runnning stryker against reffects-store's code:

Mutation testing is pretty solid. Better than code coverage for sure. Using Stryker personally.

A mutation testing tool (like Stryker) runs your unit tests to verify they all pass then makes a small change (mutation) to your code and reruns the tests. At least one test should fail because the modified code should behave differently.

I haven't tried it yet, but last time I researched it, this is the library that looked most promising: https://stryker-mutator.io/

Website: https://stryker-mutator.io/

On a side note, something I would highly recommend NOT doing is using the built in assertion types for any of the test adapters. Without a doubt the hardest part of switching unit test frameworks is having to fix all your assertions which is why we use 3rd party assertions. The built-in assertions also tend to not be very feature rich and don't have the most helpful messages. We personally use FluentAssertions, but there are other options such as Shoudly or Should. I highly recommend picking one of them over the built in assertions. You will thank yourself later :)

Shouldly - More "fluent" way of writing assertions that I tend to like more personally. Example:

I use NUnit and Shoudly.

Robbie Rogers came out in the MLS like a decade ago