Assert.AreEqual - Null vs Empty String

Question

Take the following example:

string x = null;
var y = String.Empty;
Assert.AreEqual(x, y);             // test fails!
Assert.AreEqual(x ?? "", y ?? ""); // passes, but ugly!

I understand that null and empty string aren't the same but for my particular application these are basically the same. My question is - are there any shortcuts that will treat null and empty string the same way? Otherwise I am faced with using the null coalescing operator all over (a bit ugly!)

Background

For a background on where this question comes from, I'm writing integration tests for a project. Basically I'm saving values to a database, then loading them again and checking that the two match. Some values, when saved are empty strings, but when loaded via EF they are coming back as null values. This causes a number of my integration test to fail.

EDIT/NOTE - The values I am using for testing are randomized. That means sometimes the value will be empty but other times they will be filled in. That in mind, I would have to use the null coalescent on every single string comparison (hence the question of an abbreviated way of doing this).

Answer 1

Drew: AlexD was on track, although he did not have it fully ferreted out. Example:

    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        Console.WriteLine(AreSame("", ""));
        Console.WriteLine(AreSame("", null));
        Console.WriteLine(AreSame(null, ""));
        Console.WriteLine(AreSame(null, null));

        Console.Read();
    }

    private static bool AreSame(string x, string y)
    {
        return (string.IsNullOrEmpty(x) == string.IsNullOrEmpty(y));
    }

In your case, you can use

Assert.AreEqual(string.IsNullOrEmpty(x), string.IsNullOrEmpty(y));

Or

Assert.IsTrue(AreSame(x, y));

Ugly? Sure, but you can at least abstract the ugliness out a bit. Ugly as

Assert.AreEqual(x ?? "", y ?? ""); // passes, but ugly!

??? Not sure. Depends on how you look at it.