I've written the class SomeObject and I want to define a const instance of this object to keep/reuse in my TestCases. How should I rewrite the code below to achieve this behavior?
[TestFixture]
public class SomeObjectTests
{
    private const SomeObject item0 = new SomeObject(0.0); // doesn't work
    [TestCase(item0, ExpectedResult = 0.0)]
    public double TestSomeObjectValue(SomeObject so)
    {
        return so.Value;
    }
    [TestCase(item0, ExpectedResult = "0.0")]
    public string TestSomeObjectValueString(SomeObject so)
    {
        return so.ValueString;
    }
}
I get the following error message:
A const field of a reference type other than string can only be initialized with null.
A better way to achieve what you are trying to do is to use TestCaseSource. In your case:
[TestFixture]
public class SomeObjectTests
{
    [TestCaseSource(typeof(TestSomeObject),"TestCasesValue")]
    public double TestSomeObjectValue(SomeObject so)
    {
        return so.Value;
    }
    [TestCaseSource(typeof(TestSomeObject),"TestCasesValueString")]
    public string TestSomeObjectValueString(SomeObject so)
    {
        return so.ValueString;
    }
}
public class TestSomeObject
{
  public static IEnumerable TestCasesValue
  {
    get
    {
        yield return new TestCaseData( new SomeObject(0.0) ).Returns( 0.0 );
        yield return new TestCaseData( new SomeObject(1.0) ).Returns( 1.0 );
    }
  }
  public static IEnumerable TestCasesValueString
  {
    get
    {
        yield return new TestCaseData( new SomeObject(0.0) ).Returns( "0.0" );
        yield return new TestCaseData( new SomeObject(1.0) ).Returns( "1.0" );
    }
  }
}
                        The C# language spec, §10.3 says (emphasis mine):
When a symbolic name for a constant value is desired, but when the type of that value is not permitted in a constant declaration, or when the value cannot be computed at compile-time by a constant-expression, a
readonlyfield (Section 10.4.2) may be used instead.
Annoyingly, this is compounded by the fact that attributes have certain restrictions too - see the C# language spec, §17.2 (again, emphasis mine):
An expression E is an attribute-argument-expression if all of the following statements are true:
The type of E is an attribute parameter type (Section 17.1.3).
At compile-time, the value of E can be resolved to one of the following:
A constant value.
A System.Type object.
A one-dimensional array of attribute-argument-expressions.
Where §17.1.3: "Attribute parameter types" says1:
The types of positional and named parameters for an attribute class are limited to the attribute parameter types, which are:
- One of the following types:
 bool,byte,char,double,float,int,long,short,string.- The type
 object.- The type
 System.Type.- An enum type, provided it has public accessibility and the types in which it is nested (if any) also have public accessibility (§17.2).
 - Single-dimensional arrays of the above types.
 
1: the quoted text is from an older version of the C# specification - in the C# 5.0 version, four additional types are mentioned: sbyte, uint, ulong, and ushort.
In other words, the best you can do is something like:
[TestFixture]
public class SomeObjectTests {
    private static readonly SomeObject item0 = new SomeObject(0.0);
    private static SomeObject getObject(string key) {
        if ( key == "item0" )
            return item0;
        throw new ArgumentException("Unknown key");
    }
    [TestCase("item0", ExpectedResult = 0.0)]
    public double TestSomeObjectValue(string key) {
        SomeObject so = getObject(key);
        return so.Value;
    }
    [TestCase("item0", ExpectedResult = "0.0")]
    public string TestSomeObjectValueString(string key) {
        SomeObject so = getObject(key);
        return so.ValueString;
    }
}
This way, the arguments to the attributes are compile-time constant, and the getObject method can handle getting the SomeObject instance.
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