Remove EqualTo alias documentation

[thomhurst]

Summary

• remove the standalone EqualTo alias section from equality documentation
• retain IsEqualTo as the natural documented assertion syntax

Root cause

The alias section described EqualTo, but its count-chaining example correctly used Count().IsEqualTo(...). Replacing that call with EqualTo(...) would be invalid because CollectionCountSource only exposes IsEqualTo(int).

Impact

Users no longer see a confusing alias section whose example cannot naturally demonstrate the alias.

Validation

• yarn build from docs
• git diff --check

Closes #6360

[codacy-production]

Up to standards ✅

🟢 Issues 0 issues

Results:
0 new issues

View in Codacy

_{NEW Get contextual insights on your PRs based on Codacy's metrics, along with PR and Jira context, without leaving GitHub. Enable AI reviewer
TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes.}

[claude]

Review

Verified the claim in the PR description against the actual assertion library source, since it's the kind of thing that's easy to get backwards in docs:

• EqualTo(...) is a generic extension method on IAssertionSource<TValue> (TUnit.Assertions/Extensions/AssertionExtensions.cs:53).
• .Count() on a collection returns CollectionCountSource<TCollection, TItem> (TUnit.Assertions/Conditions/CollectionCountSource.cs:11), which is a standalone class that does not implement IAssertionSource<int> — it only exposes its own IsEqualTo/IsNotEqualTo/IsGreaterThan/etc. members directly.

So the removed example (Count().EqualTo(3)) genuinely would not compile — the PR's stated root cause is correct, not just plausible-sounding. Good catch.

Also checked:

• No other doc page links to the #equalto-alias anchor or references Using_EqualTo_Alias, so nothing is left dangling by the removal.
• IsEqualTo/IsNotEqualTo remain documented directly above the removed section, so basic equality coverage is unaffected.
• The generic scalar EqualTo alias (which is valid on non-collection sources) isn't otherwise documented elsewhere, but that's out of scope for this PR — it's a deletion of an incorrect example, not a claim that the alias doesn't exist anywhere.

No architectural or design concerns — this is a minimal, correctly-scoped documentation fix with no code changes. Nothing to change here.