Fix bug in the creation of the parameter inheritance tree

[jdreesen]

Description

We should use the variable that holds the method name instead of the parameter name to get the method from the reflection class.

Motivation and context

It's late, and I'm a bit tired, but I was just browsing the code and if I'm not mistaken, the wrong variable was used when getting the method while determining the parameter inheritance tree.

How has this been tested?

I didn't.

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an x in all the boxes that apply:

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist:

Go over all the following points, and put an x in all the boxes that apply.

Please, please, please, don't send your pull request until all of the boxes are ticked. Once your pull request is created, it will trigger a build on our continuous integration server to make sure your tests and code style pass.

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• My pull request addresses exactly one patch/feature.
• I have created a branch for this patch/feature.
• Each individual commit in the pull request is meaningful.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• If my change requires a change to the documentation, I have updated it accordingly.

If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help!

[Crell]

This will absolutely need a corresponding test. Visually I see what you mean, but the code certainly seems to have been working so far. That the unit tests pass suggests there's a gap in test coverage, which we need to close.

[Crell]

Heh, turns out, parameter inheritance was completely untested. 🙃

I've fixed that in my "prep for 1.0.0" branch, and corrected this typo, too. Thanks for the catch.