Add tests for Moq compatibility with COM interop type events #713
Conversation
This file contains 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
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
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 is a continuation, and completion, of the previous PR (#712).
This present PR documents the second reason (apart from F# compatibility) why Moq doesn't query
method.IsSpecialNamewhen trying to figure out whether a method could possibly be an event accessor: this IL flag isn't necessarily (or perhaps never) set in COM interop assemblies!This requires us to have a COM interop type assembly. Instead of relying on any interop assembly that might or might not be present on the build machine, we build our own. This PR includes both a compiled interop assembly, as well as its
.idldefinition file, along with instructions on how to build the DLL from it.PS: There are possibly some more aspects to Moq compatibility with COM interop that we might want to formalize with tests in the future. Extending
ComTypes.idl, then rebuildingMoq.Tests.ComTypes.dlland writing unit tests against it is a means to do just that.