starred/WireMock.Net-wiremock
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/wiremock/WireMock.Net.git synced 2026-01-11 14:20:29 +01:00
Code Issues 32 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

FluentAssertions - assert the server has not received a call #418

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 15:23:28 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:23:28 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @MeuLee on GitHub (May 10, 2022).

Originally assigned to: @StefH on GitHub.

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Using HaveReceived(0).Calls() throws an exception if no calls have been made.
"Expected StubServer to have been called at address matching the absolute url "https://localhost:62040/path/to/the/resource", but no calls were made."

Describe the solution you'd like
HaveReceived(0).Calls() should validate that no calls have been made to the stub server, optionally taking into account the specifications such as .AtAbsoluteUrl()
I suppose the method was not intended to be used this way, but I think it would be neat to leverage WireMock.FluentAssertions for this kind of tests.
A use case I have in mind is for caching server responses.

Describe alternatives you've considered
I am currently using the following - just FluentAssertions, not the WireMock version.

StubServer.LogEntries.Should().NotContain(logEntry => logEntry.RequestMessage.Path == "/path/to/the/resource");
Originally created by @MeuLee on GitHub (May 10, 2022). Originally assigned to: @StefH on GitHub. **Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.** Using `HaveReceived(0).Calls()` throws an exception if no calls have been made. "Expected StubServer to have been called at address matching the absolute url "https://localhost:62040/path/to/the/resource", but no calls were made." **Describe the solution you'd like** `HaveReceived(0).Calls()` should validate that no calls have been made to the stub server, optionally taking into account the specifications such as `.AtAbsoluteUrl()` I suppose the method was not intended to be used this way, but I think it would be neat to leverage WireMock.FluentAssertions for this kind of tests. A use case I have in mind is for caching server responses. **Describe alternatives you've considered** I am currently using the following - just FluentAssertions, not the WireMock version. ```cs StubServer.LogEntries.Should().NotContain(logEntry => logEntry.RequestMessage.Path == "/path/to/the/resource"); ```
adam added the feature label 2025-12-29 15:23:28 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 15:23:28 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:23:29 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@StefH commented on GitHub (May 11, 2022):

@MeuLee
Good point. I'll take a look.

@StefH commented on GitHub (May 11, 2022): @MeuLee Good point. I'll take a look.
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:23:30 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@StefH commented on GitHub (May 13, 2022):

Will be fixed in new version.

@StefH commented on GitHub (May 13, 2022): Will be fixed in new version.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
bug
bug
doc
doc
duplicate
feature
feature
invalid
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
wontfix
No Label feature
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
adam
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/WireMock.Net-wiremock#418
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?