Types With Internal Abstract Members Cause Issues

[JasonBock]

Describe the bug
I added Aspose.Email for the code gen app, and I ran into a type that has an obfuscated name (the assembly was probably run through an obfuscator for....some reason). When that happens and Rocks wants to handle it, bad things happen.

To Reproduce
Try to mock Aspose.Email.Mapi.MapiContactPropertySet

Expected behavior
No issues

Additional context
Offhand I'm not sure what to do here. It's not something I can reproduce because I can't generate a type in C# with a name like 4gbnwbnbspeclmzqvzf8egt7ef2ytrtdMCa(). I may just say, I won't change anything in Rocks, and if this comes up....oh well. There's nothing one could do anyway....well, what I could do, if I can determine if a member name isn't "speakable", then I won't include it in the list of mockable members if it's not abstract.

[JasonBock]

You can use SyntaxFacts.IsValidIdentifier() to determine if an identifier is invalid.

I'm not sure I'll ever fix this. Do I need to check every name, like the member names, parameter names, type names, etc.? It can be a fair amount of work for a very, very small edge case. IMO, visible "things" should be valid. If non-public members have invalid identifiers, that's fine, but then Rocks would never see them anyway.

Personally, I don't like obfuscators in general, and this issue is yet another reason why I don't.

[JasonBock]

I think the best to do here is look at the mock type name, and the mockable member names, and if any are invalid identifiers, I create a diagnostic, and therefore it's not mockable.

[JasonBock]

I was completely wrong on what the problem is. Yes, the member name is not valid, but....the real issue is that it's internal and abstract. So there's no way Rocks could ever create a mock for it - doesn't matter if the name is a valid identifier or not.

Actually, it's kind of a combination of both. Because the name isn't valid, Rocks doesn't even look at it, so it's ignored until the compiler says, "hey, you need to implement this." So I do need to add in a check on the mock type.