Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add tests for Moq compatibility with F# events #712

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 28, 2018

Conversation

stakx
Copy link
Contributor

@stakx stakx commented Oct 28, 2018

There are two old Google Code issues which were resolved with commit 44070a9, however no documentation or unit tests were ever added for these issues:

This commit adds unit tests for the first of these two issues by adding an F# project to the solution, which allows us to define F# types for use in unit tests.

Some of these tests are skipped on purpose; see dotnet/fsharp#5834.

There are two old Google Code issues which were resolved with commit
44070a9, however no documentation or unit tests were ever added for
these issues:

 * Moq fails to mock events defined in F#:
   https://code.google.com/archive/p/moq/issues/238

 * Can't raise events on mocked Interop interfaces:
   https://code.google.com/archive/p/moq/issues/226

This commit adds unit tests for the first of these two issues by add-
ing an F# test project to the solution, which allows us to define F#
types for use in unit tests.
@stakx stakx merged commit fc45ad1 into devlooped:master Oct 28, 2018
@stakx stakx deleted the fsharp-events branch October 28, 2018 14:08
@kzu
Copy link
Contributor

kzu commented Oct 28, 2018

👍!

stakx added a commit to stakx/moq that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2018
This is a follow-up to devlooped#712 and devlooped#713, where we added tests documenting
F# and COM events not being marked with the IL `specialname` flag. But
as it turns out, F# and COM *properties* are marked as `specialname`,
which we document here using unit tests. Finally, we bring back checks
for `method.IsSpecialName` for property accessor method recognition.
stakx added a commit to stakx/moq that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2018
This is a follow-up to devlooped#712 and devlooped#713, where we added tests documenting
F# and COM events not being marked with the IL `specialname` flag. But
as it turns out, F# and COM *properties* are marked as `specialname`,
which we document here using unit tests. Finally, we bring back checks
for `method.IsSpecialName` for property accessor method recognition.
stakx added a commit to stakx/moq that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2018
This is a follow-up to devlooped#712 and devlooped#713, where we added tests documenting
F# and COM events not being marked with the IL `specialname` flag. But
as it turns out, F# and COM *properties* are marked as `specialname`,
which we document here using unit tests. Finally, we bring back checks
for `method.IsSpecialName` for property accessor method recognition.
stakx added a commit to stakx/moq that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2018
This is a follow-up to devlooped#712 and devlooped#713, where we added tests documenting
F# and COM events not being marked with the IL `specialname` flag. But
as it turns out, F# and COM *properties and indexer* accessor methods
are marked as `specialname`, which we document here using unit tests.
Finally, we bring back checks for `method.IsSpecialName` for property
and indexer accessor method recognition.
stakx added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2018
This is a follow-up to #712 and #713, where we added tests documenting
F# and COM events not being marked with the IL `specialname` flag. But
as it turns out, F# and COM *properties and indexer* accessor methods
are marked as `specialname`, which we document here using unit tests.
Finally, we bring back checks for `method.IsSpecialName` for property
and indexer accessor method recognition.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants