Make internal verification API more generic than Verify(), VerifyAll()
#983
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
force-pushed
the
setup-verification
branch
2 times, most recently
from
5295af8
to
411629e
Compare
stakx
force-pushed
the
setup-verification
branch
from
411629e
to
6b3bf34
Compare
stakx
changed the title
Verify(), VerifyAll()Verify(), VerifyAll()
stakx
changed the title
Verify(), VerifyAll()Verify(), VerifyAll()
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 prerequisite to #976, as it gets the setup verification API ready for publication.
Besides simplifying existing code, it also opens doors to new future forms of verification besides just
mock.Verify()andmock.VerifyAll()—thinkmock.Verify(setup => setup.State.Contains(<some tag>)./cc @ashmind