Repository navigation
New algorithm for matching invoked methods against expected methods - #904
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
One thing that isn't explicitly mentioned above is that Moq no longer considers the return type as part of a method's signature like it used to (and that is generally a good thing). This can have some consequences in certain scenarios, see e.g. #922. Marking this PR as breaking change to make this more visible. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This replaces the machinery that was responsible for determining whether an invoked method matches that encoded in a setup or verification expression. This previous machinery is very ad-hoc and performs a bunch of tests, such as method name equality, assignment compatibility, parameter list equality, and return type equality.
Instead of all that, why not let the runtime do that work by leveraging
method.GetBaseDefinition(), then simply comparingMethodInfos? (There are some finer points, such as converting generic methods to their (open) generic method definitions; mapping interface methods to the concrete proxy type's methods that provide their implementations; special handling for delegate invocations; etc.)Fixes #657. Supercedes #658. Fixes #903.