Verify you want a Func<bool?> and not a Func<bool>?

[ghost]

Tasty/src/Xenial.Tasty.Core/Metadata/TestCase.cs

Line 18 in 9006911

public Func<bool?> IsIgnored { get; internal set; } = () => false;

This might simply be two redundant null checks, but at certain places TestCase.IsIgnored is treated like TestCase.IsForced. For example in Xenial.Delicious.Execution.TestMiddleware.IgnoreTestMiddleware.UseIgnoreTestExecutor and Xenial.Delicious.Remote.TastyRemoteDefaults.AttachToStream where you check IsIgnored for null.

Just want to make sure it is not a misplaced '?' in the variable declaration.

[biohazard999]

Good catch.

A test is either ignored or not, or is undefined. So for forcing tests I decided it would be okay to have the group mark the lower tree with it's outcome. That's the reason for the Func<bool?>. But it could be handled with Func<bool>? and Func<bool?>? as well. But to be honest, I am totally not happy with the shape of that feature (cause it's somewhat broken right now).
We don't have test filters right now, so I think that API should go away when we introduce filters (which I don't have any idea right now how to do properly yet)

AND:
We should make those unclear API's internal until we find the right API shape