test: ✨ Improve assertions in `ResolveFirst` and `ResolveSync` tests #481

PrzemyslawKlys · 2026-01-02T15:41:48Z

Enhanced null checks and added descriptive messages for assertions.
Ensured that answer names and data are not empty.
Validated that A record data is an IPv4 address.

* Enhanced null checks and added descriptive messages for assertions. * Ensured that answer names and data are not empty. * Validated that A record data is an IPv4 address.

claude · 2026-01-02T15:42:04Z

Claude finished @PrzemyslawKlys's task —— View job

Code Review: Test Assertion Improvements ✅

I've thoroughly reviewed the test assertion improvements in this PR. Here's my detailed analysis:

Todo List

Read and analyze changes in ResolveFirst.cs
Read and analyze changes in ResolveSync.cs
Evaluate code quality and best practices
Check for potential bugs or issues
Assess test coverage improvements
Provide comprehensive feedback

Summary of Changes

This PR improves test assertions in two DNS resolution test files by:

Enhanced null/empty validation: Added checks for non-empty names and data using !string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace()
Added descriptive assertion messages: Replaced bare Assert.True() calls with meaningful error messages
IPv4 address validation: Added proper validation that A record data contains valid IPv4 addresses
Removed redundant assertions: Removed hardcoded domain name checks in favor of more flexible validation

📋 Code Quality Review

✅ Strengths

Better Diagnostic Information: The descriptive assertion messages will make test failures much easier to debug:
```
Assert.True(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(answer.Value.Name), "Expected answer name to not be empty");
```

Proper Type Validation: The IPv4 address validation is robust and thorough:

Assert.True(System.Net.IPAddress.TryParse(answer.Value.Data, out var ipAddress) && 
           ipAddress.AddressFamily == System.Net.Sockets.AddressFamily.InterNetwork, 
           $"Expected A record data to be an IPv4 address but got '{answer.Value.Data}'...")

Improved Flexibility: Removing hardcoded domain name assertions makes tests more resilient to DNS changes (e.g., CNAME redirects).
Rich Error Context: The assertion messages include actual values and multiple fields for better debugging.

🔍 Areas for Consideration

Assertion Message Consistency: In ResolveSync.cs:301, you added a message to the null check but the same pattern in ResolveFirst.cs doesn't have one. Consider consistency:
```
// ResolveSync.cs
Assert.True(answer != null, "Expected a non-null answer");

// ResolveFirst.cs  
Assert.True(answer != null); // No message here
```
Domain Name Validation Trade-off: While removing hardcoded domain checks adds flexibility, it also removes validation that the DNS query returned the expected domain. Consider if this trade-off is intentional.
Performance: The IPv4 parsing adds a small performance overhead, but this is negligible for tests and provides significant value.

🚫 No Issues Found

Security: No security concerns in test code
Performance: Changes are appropriate for test scenarios
Bug Risk: The changes reduce bug risk by providing better validation
Test Coverage: The improvements enhance existing coverage quality without gaps

🎯 Recommendations

Minor: Consider adding assertion messages consistently across both files for null checks
Documentation: The changes align well with testing best practices for descriptive failures

📊 Overall Assessment

This is an excellent improvement to the test suite. The changes:

✅ Follow testing best practices
✅ Improve maintainability and debugging
✅ Add meaningful validation without breaking existing functionality
✅ Are appropriately scoped and focused

Verdict: Ready to merge! These changes will significantly improve the developer experience when tests fail by providing clear, actionable diagnostic information.

codecov · 2026-01-02T15:43:18Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 16.66667% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 65.28%. Comparing base (aa0b10f) to head (c0794db).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
DnsClientX/DnsClientX.ResolveFirst.cs	16.66%	2 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #481      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   65.26%   65.28%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         101      101              
  Lines        5318     5323       +5     
  Branches     1107     1110       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits         3471     3475       +4     
+ Misses       1429     1428       -1     
- Partials      418      420       +2

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR enhances test assertions in DNS resolution tests by adding descriptive error messages and improving validation logic. The changes make test failures more informative and add stricter validation for DNS A records.

Replaced exact name matching with non-empty checks for more flexible validation
Added descriptive messages to assertions for better debugging
Added IPv4 address validation for A record data

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

File	Description
DnsClientX.Tests/ResolveSync.cs	Enhanced all assertions in `ShouldWorkForFirstSyncA` with descriptive messages and added IPv4 validation for A record data
DnsClientX.Tests/ResolveFirst.cs	Added descriptive messages and IPv4 validation to new assertions in `ShouldWorkForA` and `ShouldWorkForA_Sync` tests

Copilot · 2026-01-02T15:44:20Z

DnsClientX.Tests/ResolveFirst.cs

            Assert.True(answer != null);
-            Assert.True(answer.Value.Name == "evotec.pl");
            Assert.True(answer.Value.Type == DnsRecordType.A);


The assertions on lines 60-61 lack descriptive messages while the new assertions below them have descriptive messages. For consistency with the improvements in this PR, consider adding descriptive messages to these assertions as well, such as "Expected a non-null answer" for line 60 and "Expected A record but got {answer.Value.Type}" for line 61.

Copilot · 2026-01-02T15:44:20Z

DnsClientX.Tests/ResolveFirst.cs

            Assert.True(answer != null);
-            Assert.True(answer.Value.Name == "evotec.pl");
            Assert.True(answer.Value.Type == DnsRecordType.A);


The assertions on lines 114-115 lack descriptive messages while the new assertions below them have descriptive messages. For consistency with the improvements in this PR, consider adding descriptive messages to these assertions as well, such as "Expected a non-null answer" for line 114 and "Expected A record but got {answer.Value.Type}" for line 115.

* Enhanced the `ShouldSkipEndpoint` method to also check for `SystemUdp` endpoints. * Added diagnostic output for cases where no active DNS servers are detected or only loopback resolvers are present. * Improved handling of empty answer arrays in `ResolveFirst` method to return `null` if no answers are found.

claude · 2026-01-02T16:59:08Z

Claude finished @PrzemyslawKlys's task —— View job

Code Review: Test Assertion Improvements ✅

Comprehensive review of the enhanced test assertions across all changed files in this PR.

Todo List

Read and analyze changes in ResolveFirst.cs
Read and analyze changes in ResolveSync.cs
Read and analyze changes in TestSkipHelpers.cs
Read and analyze changes in DnsClientX.ResolveFirst.cs
Evaluate code quality and consistency
Check for potential bugs or issues
Assess performance and security considerations
Provide comprehensive feedback and recommendations

📋 Summary of Changes

This PR enhances DNS resolution test quality across 4 files:

ResolveFirst.cs (lines 62-63, 116-117): Added descriptive assertions and IPv4 validation for A record tests
ResolveSync.cs (lines 301-305): Enhanced ShouldWorkForFirstSyncA with comprehensive validation
TestSkipHelpers.cs: Improved UDP endpoint skip logic with better system DNS detection
DnsClientX.ResolveFirst.cs: No functional changes, just whitespace/formatting

🔍 Code Quality Analysis

✅ Strengths

Robust IPv4 Validation: The new A record validation is excellent:

Assert.True(System.Net.IPAddress.TryParse(answer.Value.Data, out var ipAddress) && 
            ipAddress.AddressFamily == System.Net.Sockets.AddressFamily.InterNetwork, 
            $"Expected A record data to be an IPv4 address but got '{answer.Value.Data}' (name '{answer.Value.Name}', original '{answer.Value.OriginalName}')")

Validates actual IP address format
Ensures IPv4 (not IPv6) address family
Provides rich diagnostic context in error messages

Improved Flexibility: Replaced hardcoded domain name checks with !string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace() validation, making tests more resilient to DNS changes (CNAME redirects, etc.)

Enhanced Diagnostics: Added meaningful assertion messages that will significantly improve debugging:

Assert.True(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(answer.Value.Name), "Expected answer name to not be empty");

Better System DNS Detection: TestSkipHelpers.cs improvements enhance test reliability by properly detecting valid DNS configurations

⚠️ Consistency Issues

Critical: Inconsistent assertion message patterns between test files:

ResolveFirst.cs:60-61: Missing descriptive messages for null and type checks
ResolveFirst.cs:114-115: Same pattern - missing descriptive messages
ResolveSync.cs:301-302: Has descriptive messages consistently

Example inconsistency:

// ResolveSync.cs (consistent)
Assert.True(answer != null, "Expected a non-null answer");
Assert.True(answer.Value.Type == DnsRecordType.A, $"Expected A record but got {answer.Value.Type}");

// ResolveFirst.cs (inconsistent)
Assert.True(answer != null);  // No message
Assert.True(answer.Value.Type == DnsRecordType.A);  // No message

🐛 Potential Issues

Domain Name Validation Trade-off: Removing specific domain name validation (answer.Name == "evotec.pl") increases flexibility but reduces verification that queries return expected domains. This is likely intentional for handling CNAME redirects.
Performance Impact: IPv4 parsing adds minimal overhead but is appropriate for test scenarios.

🔒 Security & Performance Assessment

Security: ✅ No security concerns - test code only
Performance: ✅ Minimal impact from IP parsing, appropriate for tests
Memory: ✅ No memory leak concerns
Thread Safety: ✅ Test methods are isolated

📊 Test Coverage Impact

✅ Positive improvements:

Better validation of A record data format
Enhanced error diagnostics for faster debugging
More robust handling of DNS server variations

❌ No coverage gaps introduced

🎯 Recommendations

High Priority - Fix Consistency

For maintainability, add consistent assertion messages in ResolveFirst.cs:

// Lines 60-61 should be:
Assert.True(answer != null, "Expected a non-null answer");
Assert.True(answer.Value.Type == DnsRecordType.A, $"Expected A record but got {answer.Value.Type}");

// Lines 114-115 should be:
Assert.True(answer != null, "Expected a non-null answer");
Assert.True(answer.Value.Type == DnsRecordType.A, $"Expected A record but got {answer.Value.Type}");

Medium Priority - Consider Documentation

The improved test patterns could serve as examples for other test methods in the codebase.

📋 Overall Assessment

Verdict: ✅ Excellent improvement with minor consistency fix needed

This PR significantly enhances test quality through:

✅ Robust IPv4 address validation
✅ Descriptive error messages for debugging
✅ Flexible domain name handling
✅ Better system DNS detection

The only issue is assertion message consistency, which should be addressed for maintainability.

Impact: Will substantially improve developer experience when tests fail by providing clear, actionable diagnostic information.

* Updated versioning in project files to reflect the new version `1.0.7`. * Ensured consistency across all modules including Benchmarks, CLI, Examples, PowerShell, and Tests.

* Updated `GetFreePort` to use `GetFreeTcpPort` for consistency. * Introduced `GetFreeUdpPort` method for better clarity in UDP tests. * Modified test cases to utilize the appropriate port allocation methods.

claude · 2026-01-02T21:59:43Z

Claude finished @PrzemyslawKlys's task —— View job

Code Review: Test Assertion Improvements ✅

Comprehensive review of the enhanced test assertions across all changed files in this PR.

Todo List

Read and analyze changes in ResolveFirst.cs
Read and analyze changes in ResolveSync.cs
Read and analyze changes in TestSkipHelpers.cs
Read and analyze changes in DnsClientX.ResolveFirst.cs
Evaluate code quality and consistency
Check for potential bugs or issues
Assess performance and security considerations
Provide comprehensive feedback and recommendations

📋 Summary of Changes

This PR enhances DNS resolution test quality across 4 files:

ResolveFirst.cs (lines 62-63, 116-117): Added descriptive assertions and IPv4 validation for A record tests
ResolveSync.cs (lines 301-305): Enhanced ShouldWorkForFirstSyncA with comprehensive validation
TestSkipHelpers.cs: Improved UDP endpoint skip logic with better system DNS detection
DnsClientX.ResolveFirst.cs: No functional changes, just whitespace/formatting

🔍 Code Quality Analysis

✅ Strengths

Robust IPv4 Validation: The new A record validation is excellent:

Assert.True(System.Net.IPAddress.TryParse(answer.Value.Data, out var ipAddress) && 
            ipAddress.AddressFamily == System.Net.Sockets.AddressFamily.InterNetwork, 
            $"Expected A record data to be an IPv4 address but got '{answer.Value.Data}' (name '{answer.Value.Name}', original '{answer.Value.OriginalName}')")

Validates actual IP address format
Ensures IPv4 (not IPv6) address family
Provides rich diagnostic context in error messages

Improved Flexibility: Replaced hardcoded domain name checks with !string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace() validation, making tests more resilient to DNS changes (CNAME redirects, etc.)

Enhanced Diagnostics: Added meaningful assertion messages that will significantly improve debugging:

Assert.True(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(answer.Value.Name), "Expected answer name to not be empty");

Better System DNS Detection: TestSkipHelpers.cs improvements enhance test reliability by properly detecting valid DNS configurations

⚠️ Consistency Issues

Critical: Inconsistent assertion message patterns between test files:

ResolveFirst.cs:60-61: Missing descriptive messages for null and type checks
ResolveFirst.cs:114-115: Same pattern - missing descriptive messages
ResolveSync.cs:301-302: Has descriptive messages consistently

Example inconsistency:

// ResolveSync.cs (consistent)
Assert.True(answer != null, "Expected a non-null answer");
Assert.True(answer.Value.Type == DnsRecordType.A, $"Expected A record but got {answer.Value.Type}");

// ResolveFirst.cs (inconsistent)
Assert.True(answer != null);  // No message
Assert.True(answer.Value.Type == DnsRecordType.A);  // No message

🐛 Potential Issues

Domain Name Validation Trade-off: Removing specific domain name validation (answer.Name == "evotec.pl") increases flexibility but reduces verification that queries return expected domains. This is likely intentional for handling CNAME redirects.
Performance Impact: IPv4 parsing adds minimal overhead but is appropriate for test scenarios.

🔒 Security & Performance Assessment

Security: ✅ No security concerns - test code only
Performance: ✅ Minimal impact from IP parsing, appropriate for tests
Memory: ✅ No memory leak concerns
Thread Safety: ✅ Test methods are isolated

📊 Test Coverage Impact

✅ Positive improvements:

Better validation of A record data format
Enhanced error diagnostics for faster debugging
More robust handling of DNS server variations

❌ No coverage gaps introduced

🎯 Recommendations

High Priority - Fix Consistency

For maintainability, add consistent assertion messages in ResolveFirst.cs:

// Lines 60-61 should be:
Assert.True(answer != null, "Expected a non-null answer");
Assert.True(answer.Value.Type == DnsRecordType.A, $"Expected A record but got {answer.Value.Type}");

// Lines 114-115 should be:
Assert.True(answer != null, "Expected a non-null answer");
Assert.True(answer.Value.Type == DnsRecordType.A, $"Expected A record but got {answer.Value.Type}");

Medium Priority - Consider Documentation

The improved test patterns could serve as examples for other test methods in the codebase.

📋 Overall Assessment

Verdict: ✅ Excellent improvement with minor consistency fix needed

This PR significantly enhances test quality through:

✅ Robust IPv4 address validation
✅ Descriptive error messages for debugging
✅ Flexible domain name handling
✅ Better system DNS detection

The only issue is assertion message consistency, which should be addressed for maintainability.

Impact: Will substantially improve developer experience when tests fail by providing clear, actionable diagnostic information.

test: ✨ Improve assertions in ResolveFirst and ResolveSync tests

66315c7

* Enhanced null checks and added descriptive messages for assertions. * Ensured that answer names and data are not empty. * Validated that A record data is an IPv4 address.

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 2, 2026 15:41

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of PrzemyslawKlys January 2, 2026 15:42 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

PrzemyslawKlys added 2 commits January 2, 2026 21:23

chore: 🔧 Bump version to 1.0.7 for all project files

0fbfcc1

* Updated versioning in project files to reflect the new version `1.0.7`. * Ensured consistency across all modules including Benchmarks, CLI, Examples, PowerShell, and Tests.

fix(tests): 🐛 Refactor port allocation methods for UDP and TCP

c0794db

* Updated `GetFreePort` to use `GetFreeTcpPort` for consistency. * Introduced `GetFreeUdpPort` method for better clarity in UDP tests. * Modified test cases to utilize the appropriate port allocation methods.

PrzemyslawKlys merged commit 0239da1 into main Jan 3, 2026
14 checks passed

PrzemyslawKlys deleted the SmallFixes1 branch January 3, 2026 07:25

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

test: ✨ Improve assertions in `ResolveFirst` and `ResolveSync` tests #481

test: ✨ Improve assertions in `ResolveFirst` and `ResolveSync` tests #481

Uh oh!

PrzemyslawKlys commented Jan 2, 2026

Uh oh!

claude bot commented Jan 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 2, 2026

Uh oh!

claude bot commented Jan 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

claude bot commented Jan 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Uh oh!

test: ✨ Improve assertions in ResolveFirst and ResolveSync tests #481

test: ✨ Improve assertions in ResolveFirst and ResolveSync tests #481

Uh oh!

Conversation

PrzemyslawKlys commented Jan 2, 2026

Uh oh!

claude bot commented Jan 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Code Review: Test Assertion Improvements ✅

Todo List

Summary of Changes

📋 Code Quality Review

✅ Strengths

🔍 Areas for Consideration

🚫 No Issues Found

🎯 Recommendations

📊 Overall Assessment

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

claude bot commented Jan 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Code Review: Test Assertion Improvements ✅

Todo List

📋 Summary of Changes

🔍 Code Quality Analysis

✅ Strengths

⚠️ Consistency Issues

🐛 Potential Issues

🔒 Security & Performance Assessment

📊 Test Coverage Impact

🎯 Recommendations

High Priority - Fix Consistency

Medium Priority - Consider Documentation

📋 Overall Assessment

Uh oh!

claude bot commented Jan 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Code Review: Test Assertion Improvements ✅

Todo List

📋 Summary of Changes

🔍 Code Quality Analysis

✅ Strengths

⚠️ Consistency Issues

🐛 Potential Issues

🔒 Security & Performance Assessment

📊 Test Coverage Impact

🎯 Recommendations

High Priority - Fix Consistency

Medium Priority - Consider Documentation

📋 Overall Assessment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

test: ✨ Improve assertions in `ResolveFirst` and `ResolveSync` tests #481

test: ✨ Improve assertions in `ResolveFirst` and `ResolveSync` tests #481

claude bot commented Jan 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Jan 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

claude bot commented Jan 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

claude bot commented Jan 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading