[dotnet] Complete NUnit 4 future-proofing

[RenderMichael]

User description

Thanks for contributing to Selenium!
A PR well described will help maintainers to quickly review and merge it

Before submitting your PR, please check our contributing guidelines.
Avoid large PRs, help reviewers by making them as simple and short as possible.

Description

Finishes future-proofing for a potential NUnit 4 upgrade. With this, I upgraded locally to NUnit 4.x and the tests ran and passed.

Motivation and Context

Fixes #14852

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist

• I have read the contributing document.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.

---

PR Type

enhancement, tests

---

Description

• Updated NUnit assertions in DevToolsProfilerTest.cs to ensure StartTime, EndTime, and TimeDeltas are non-zero, enhancing test robustness.
• Improved message formatting in DevToolsTestFixture.cs by using string interpolation for Assert.Ignore.

---

Changes walkthrough 📝

Relevant files

Enhancement

DevToolsProfilerTest.cs Update NUnit assertions for profiler validation                    dotnet/test/common/DevTools/DevToolsProfilerTest.cs Changed assertions for StartTime and EndTime to check for non-zero values. Updated assertion for TimeDeltas to check for non-zero values. +3/-3      DevToolsTestFixture.cs Use string interpolation for ignore message                            dotnet/test/common/DevTools/DevToolsTestFixture.cs Modified Assert.Ignore message formatting to use string interpolation. +1/-1

---

💡 PR-Agent usage: Comment /help "your question" on any pull request to receive relevant information

[qodo-merge-pro]

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 1 🔵⚪⚪⚪⚪

🧪 PR contains tests

🔒 No security concerns identified

⚡ Recommended focus areas for review Test Coverage The test now checks for non-zero values instead of non-null. Verify this is the correct validation for profiler timing data.

[qodo-merge-pro]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Score
General	Remove unreachable code that follows a test assertion that always throws an exception The return statement after Assert.Ignore is unreachable code since Assert.Ignore throws an exception. Remove the redundant return statement. dotnet/test/common/DevTools/DevToolsTestFixture.cs [42-43] Assert.Ignore($"{EnvironmentManager.Instance.Browser} does not support Chrome DevTools Protocol"); -return; Apply this suggestion Suggestion importance[1-10]: 7 Why: The suggestion correctly identifies that the return statement after Assert.Ignore is redundant since Assert.Ignore always throws an exception. Removing it improves code clarity and eliminates dead code.	7
	Simplify collection validation by using LINQ instead of explicit iteration The foreach loop for TimeDeltas contains only an assertion without any other logic. Consider using LINQ's All() method for a more concise and idiomatic check. dotnet/test/common/DevTools/DevToolsProfilerTest.cs [137-140] -foreach (var delta in profiler.TimeDeltas) -{ - Assert.That(delta, Is.Not.Zero); -} +Assert.That(profiler.TimeDeltas.All(delta => delta != 0), Is.True, "All time deltas should be non-zero"); Apply this suggestion Suggestion importance[1-10]: 5 Why: The suggestion proposes a more concise LINQ-based approach which is idiomatic in C#. While functionally equivalent, it's primarily a stylistic improvement that makes the code more readable but doesn't affect functionality.	5

💡 Need additional feedback ? start a PR chat

[RenderMichael]

Modern NUnit comes with some analyzers which explained that profiler.StartTime, profiler.EndTime, and delta are value types (all doubles) so can never be null. These tests pass if we assert instead that they are != 0

[nvborisenko]

Not clear what zero means. If we are in context of datetimes, let's try to be specific.

[RenderMichael]

So I took a deeper look at this, and although it's storing datetime values, it does so as unix timestamps (and therefore, numbers).

NUnit 4 introduces an Is.(Not.)Default assertion, which is all we're really testing here (making sure the field is populated), but we don't have access to that yet. Either way, I hope with this clarification we can accept Is.Not.Zero as a meaningful assertion. Let me know if there's something else we should do (maybe parse to DateTime from unit timestamp?)