Updated base specifications as non-abstract classes. #252
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ardalis
approved these changes
May 19, 2022
Merged
This was referenced Jun 25, 2022
Open
This was referenced Jul 22, 2025
This was referenced Jul 31, 2025
This was referenced Aug 21, 2025
This was referenced Sep 15, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We had a few requests for this. Frankly, there is no reason for them to be abstract, we're not requiring any contract in them. So, now users can create empty specifications simply by using
new Specification<T>(). I have seen some interesting generic designs by users, and this would be of help to them.