fix: Throw an informative registry exception in RegisterViewsForViewModels #2448
Conversation
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
worldbeater
approved these changes
Jul 9, 2020
glennawatson
changed the title
glennawatson
approved these changes
Jul 10, 2020
|
This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
developer usefulness
What is the current behavior?
When using RegisterViewsForViewModels, it throws an InvalidOperationException with the unhelpful message, "Sequence contains no matching element," if any of the views are missing a parameterless constructor.
What is the new behavior?
Message is changed to "Failed to register type {typeInfo.FullName} because it's missing a parameterless constructor."
What might this PR break?
Nothing.
Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements
Other information:
Resolves #2437