diff --git a/src/ImTools/ImTools.cs b/src/ImTools/ImTools.cs
index 60ebf77..564b144 100644
--- a/src/ImTools/ImTools.cs
+++ b/src/ImTools/ImTools.cs
@@ -6926,6 +6926,8 @@ public class DebugProxy<K, V, TEq, TEntries>
     // todo: @improve ? how/where to add SIMD to improve CPU utilization but not losing perf for smaller sizes
     // todo: @perf We may use Stack-on-stack data structure similar to FastExrpressionCompiler.Stack4 for packed hashes up to 4 or more.
     // todo: @perf In case of using RefEq it might be faster for the small map to lookup by comparing entry key instead of reaching for hash
+    // todo: @perf We may additionally implement the Enumerator for the Entries or just expose the array for the SingleArrayEntries to allow fastest iteration without checks for Removed! entries (if you have knowledge the nothing is removed ever).
+    // todo: @perf ...related to the Enumerator above, another option is to expose GetIncludingRemovedEntriesEnumerator() on the map itself
 
     /// <summary>
     /// Fast and less-allocating hash map without thread safety nets. Please measure it in your own use case before use.
diff --git a/test/ImTools.UnitTests/FHashMapTests.cs b/test/ImTools.UnitTests/FHashMapTests.cs
index ac1944c..2505493 100644
--- a/test/ImTools.UnitTests/FHashMapTests.cs
+++ b/test/ImTools.UnitTests/FHashMapTests.cs
@@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ public static void VerifyNoDuplicateKeys<K, V, TEq, TEntries>(this FHashMap<K, V
             if (h == 0)
                 continue;
             var key = map.Entries.GetSurePresentEntryRef(h & indexMask).Key;
-            if (!uniq.TryGetValue(key, out _))
+            if (!uniq.ContainsKey(key))
                 uniq.Add(key, 1);
             else
                 Assert.Fail($"Duplicate key: {key}");