I had noticed that there were fewer tests for the new methods than the old ones of this type. The original methods have tests that validate that the arguments passed into the valueProducer function are used, and also that a particular kind of exception is thrown when the signature of the valueProducer function matches the faked method.
My original inclination was to ignore the missing tests, as they seemed a little "belt and suspenders", and it was unlikely that the implementation of the Task and non-Task versions of these methods would drift. However, I think maybe it's a good idea to add the tests.
Mostly because I see that this method doesn't check the signature of the valueProducer, and so I think we'll get different exceptions from the two kinds of methods.
It's tedious work, but would you be open to checking the implementation of the method above this one, and looking at all its tests and making the new methods align with what's done there? For example, see the `AssertThatValueProducerSignatureSatisfiesCallSignature` that's used to compare signatures and produce helpful exceptions when the signatures do not match.