Add assertions to IsDependencyOfExplicitlyReferencedComponents test calls

[Copilot]

Addresses feedback from #1617 (comment)

Changes

The circular dependency test called IsDependencyOfExplicitlyReferencedComponents twice without asserting the boolean return values, allowing the test to pass even when dependency relationships were incorrectly recorded.

Added .Should().BeTrue() assertions to both calls. Corrected the second assertion to check component C against explicitly-referenced component A (not transitive component B):

// Before: no assertions, checked C against B
componentRecorder.IsDependencyOfExplicitlyReferencedComponents<NpmComponent>(
    componentCId,
    parentComponent => parentComponent.Name == componentA.Name || parentComponent.Name == componentB.Name);

// After: asserts result, checks C against explicitly-referenced A
componentRecorder.IsDependencyOfExplicitlyReferencedComponents<NpmComponent>(
    componentCId,
    parentComponent => parentComponent.Name == componentA.Name).Should().BeTrue();

The method validates that a component is a dependency of an explicitly referenced component. Only A is explicitly referenced in package.json, so both B and C must be validated against A.

New Detector Checklist

• I have gone through the docs for creating a new detector here
• My new detector implements IDefaultOffComponentDetector
• I have created a PR to the verification repo with components that my new detector can find
• (If necessary) I have updated the Feature Overview table in the README

---

💡 You can make Copilot smarter by setting up custom instructions, customizing its development environment and configuring Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers. Learn more Copilot coding agent tips in the docs.

[github-actions]

👋 Hi! It looks like you modified some files in the Detectors folder.
You may need to bump the detector versions if any of the following scenarios apply:

• The detector detects more or fewer components than before
• The detector generates different parent/child graph relationships than before
• The detector generates different devDependencies values than before

If none of the above scenarios apply, feel free to ignore this comment 🙂

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.1%. Comparing base (9f83cdc) to head (d306a9a).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on users/rbhansali/fix-npm-transitive-dependency.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                              Coverage Diff                              @@
##           users/rbhansali/fix-npm-transitive-dependency   #1618   +/-   ##
=============================================================================
  Coverage                                           90.1%   90.1%           
=============================================================================
  Files                                                435     435           
  Lines                                              37556   37556           
  Branches                                            2312    2311    -1     
=============================================================================
+ Hits                                               33861   33863    +2     
  Misses                                              3219    3219           
+ Partials                                             476     474    -2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.