> **Rubberduck version information**
The info below can be copy-paste-completed from the first lines of Rubberduck's log or the About box:

Version 2.5.1.5676
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 10.0.19042.0, x64
Host Product: Microsoft Office x64
Host Version: 16.0.12527.21330
Host Executable: EXCEL.EXE


**Description**
fix for inspection breaks code

**To Reproduce**
`Private myARRAY(1 To 3)`

will be changed to

`Private myARRAY As Variant(1 To 3)`

**Expected behavior**
`Private

> I'm on 16.8.2 and one of the solutions offered (https://developercommunity2.visualstudio.com/t/After-168-update-getting-lot-of-code-an/1251574?preview=true) for the build issue is to Build twice. Worked for me.

The first time it barfs with errors. Second attempt takes no time as Visual Studio decides all is swell and #ItJustworks.

> Closes #5646

PR modifies the `DeclareAsExplicitVariant` to leverage the `ImplicitTypeToExplicitRefactoringAction` and removes the `DeclareAsExplicitVariant` tests as they are now redundant to the tests for the refactoring action.

> **Justification**
Some users prefer no spacing between the properties. Extra spacing adds to scrolling

**Description**
As the default for events handlers, when using Implements keyword, and others I'm unaware of is to include a space between the members I assume we keep this as the default behavior. Add option to remove/include blank lines between properties.

**Additional context**
```vb
'Before Encapsulate Field
Public Foo As String
```

```vb
'After Encapsulate Field - Note sp

> **Rubberduck version information**
Version 2.5.1.32954
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 10.0.19041.0, x64
Host Product: Microsoft Office x86
Host Version: 16.0.13426.20294
Host Executable: EXCEL.EXE

**Description**
An extra line is added.

**To Reproduce**
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
1. Create a Public variable
2. Parse with RD
3. Right click variable for context menu > Rubberduck > Refactor >Encapsulate Field
4. Check Wrap Fields in Private Type check box.
5. Preview box has ext

> I think this should be an indenter setting; the generated code goes through the indenter, and there's already a setting for vertical whitespace between scopes - I'm guessing we'd be looking at a checkbox to perhaps "remove vertical space between property members" here.

Implementing this in the refactoring itself would be the wrong place I think.