Can I use an Expression Tree as an argument constraint in a FakeIteasy CallTo assertion?
Given a method on an interface with the following signature:
interface IRepository<TEntity>
{
TEntity Single(Expression<Func<TEntity, bool>> predicate);
Being called in code like so:
Flight flight = repository.Single(f => f.ID == id);
I have in mind a unit test doing something like this:
Expression<Func<Flight, bool>> myExpression = flight => flight.ID == 1;
A.CallTo(() => repository.Single(
A<Expression<Func<Flight, bool>>>.That.Matches(myExpression)))
.Returns(new Flight());
However this produces a warning: Try specifying type arguments explicitly.
I am currently having to use the Ignored property which is not ideal.
The "Matches"-method takes a lambda but you're trying to pass it the expression. What are you trying to say with the "Matches"-call? Are you matching on equality? In that case you'd just write:
A.CallTo(() => repository.Single(myExpression)).Returns(new Flight());
If you want to constrain the expression on something else you'd have to pass a predicate of the type: Func<Expression<Func<Flight, bool>>, bool> to the "Matches"-method.
Thanks Patrik,
Examining the expression was exactly what I needed to do, i.e. parse the expression (f => f.ID == id) and execute the Right side of the == to get its runtime value.
In code this looks like this:
A.CallTo(() => flightRepository.Single(A<Expression<Func<Flight, bool>>>.That
.Matches(exp => Expression.Lambda<Func<int>>(((BinaryExpression)exp.Body).Right).Compile().Invoke() == 1)))
.Returns(new Flight());
However I can't help thinking that there must be a more elegant way to achieve the same end. I'll leave that for another day though.
Thanks again, Michael McDowell
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With