How to chain multiple 'And' when checking exception with FluentAssertions

Question

I have a unit test that validates that some code throws an exception and that two properties have the expected value. Here is how I do it:

var exception = target.Invoking(t => t.CallSomethingThatThrows())
                    .ShouldThrow<WebServiceException>()
                    .And;

            exception.StatusCode.Should().Be(400);
            exception.ErrorMessage.Should().Be("Bla bla...");

I don't like the look of the assertion that must be done in three statements. Is there an elegant way to do it in a single statement? My first intuition was to use something like this:

target.Invoking(t => t.CallSomethingThatThrows())
                    .ShouldThrow<WebServiceException>()
                    .And.StatusCode.Should().Be(400)
                    .And.ErrorMessage.Should().Be("Bla bla...");

Unfortunately, this doesn't compile.

score 8 · Accepted Answer · edited May 17 '18 at 11:48

8

As said here:

target.Invoking(t => t.CallSomethingThatThrows())
      .ShouldThrow<WebServiceException>()
      .Where(e => e.StatusCode == 400)
      .Where(e => e.ErrorMessage == "Bla bla...");

edited May 17 '18 at 11:48

CamM

798
1
11
24

answered Nov 21 '16 at 19:46

mabead

2,171
2
27
42

3

Doesn't this approach result in very barebones failure exceptions? – julealgon Mar 23 '18 at 20:00

score -1 · Answer 2 · answered Jan 05 '17 at 03:33

Not really a direct answer but I note that, if you only have one property of the exception to check, you can use a more fluid syntax like this:

target.Invoking(t => t.CallSomethingThatThrows())
      .ShouldThrow<WebServiceException>()
      .Which.StatusCode.Should().Be(400);

How to chain multiple 'And' when checking exception with FluentAssertions

2 Answers2