Closed brettpostin closed 1 year ago
I'm afraid not - the whole execution chain is predicated on building up a list of types that pass or fail rules (see FunctionSequence.Execute()). It doesn't retain any other metadata around why a rule failed for each type.
How can I vote for this as a feature request? I have struggled for two hour now to figure out why two simple types of mine fail.
Implementing that would require too many breaking changes, including performance profile/impact, thus I do not think that this will be ever implemented here. I have started the parallel project, that allows sending metadata alongside the type, and I have in mind this issue, but right now I do not have the motivation to push it forward.
Fair enough. Thank you for the response 🙂
Mvh Thomas Eyde
On 8 Nov 2022, at 14:04, NeVeS @.***> wrote:
 Implementing that would require too many breaking changes, including performance profile/impact, thus I do not think that this will be ever implemented here. I have started the parallel project, that allows sending metadata alongside the type, and I have in mind this issue, but right now I do not have the motivation to push it forward.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you commented.
@thomaseyde we switched to ArchUnitNET, which according to nuget uses this project as a dependency and does report on failure reasons.
In my tests I am outputting the types that fail the test. However what would be great is to identify the reason why that type fails the test.
e.g.
It would be great to see the dependencies causing the violation. Is there any means to do that at present?