I have this call on one view model
ShowViewModel<MyViewModel>(
new MyParams { ... }
);
On MyViewModel I have this Init method which works perfect
public void Init(MyParams params)
{
if (params != null)
{
// some logic
}
else
{
// some other logic
}
}
On another view model I have
ShowViewModel<MyViewModel>();
I expect to receive null on MyViewModel init method, instead of that I get an instance of 'MyParams'. That's generating problems since I have specific logic to handle the call with no parameters
I have custom presenter logic that might responsible for this, but at first sight I couldn't identify any custom logic as responsible. Is this the standard behavior for complex params?
Unfortunately, no there isn't a way to pass null using a parameters object.
The reason is that when Mvx creates the ViewModel and attempts to call the Init method, it will first convert your object instance into a simple dictionary (key/value pairs). If you use the no arg version, then it creates an empty dictionary. At this point, it creates an MvxBundle which includes the dictionary.
When Mvx is finally ready to call your Init method, it takes this dictionary and attempts to create an actual object.
It's this method that creates the instance to pass to Init.
MvxSimplePropertyDictionaryExtensionMethods.Read()
https://github.com/MvvmCross/MvvmCross/blob/8a824c797747f74716fc64c2fd0e8765c29b16ab/MvvmCross/Core/Core/Platform/MvxSimplePropertyDictionaryExtensionMethods.cs#L54-L72
public static object Read(this IDictionary<string, string> data, Type type)
{
var t = Activator.CreateInstance(type);
var propertyList =
type.GetProperties(BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.FlattenHierarchy).Where(p => p.CanWrite);
foreach (var propertyInfo in propertyList)
{
string textValue;
if (!data.TryGetValue(propertyInfo.Name, out textValue))
continue;
var typedValue = MvxSingletonCache.Instance.Parser.ReadValue(textValue, propertyInfo.PropertyType,
propertyInfo.Name);
propertyInfo.SetValue(t, typedValue, new object[0]);
}
return t;
}
Notice how it calls Activator.CreateInstance(type) which will always return an instance.
So that is why you'll never get an null value in Init.
My recommendation is to simply add a property to your MyParams object and set that in your no-arg version. Then in Init you can check the property to determine what to do.
Something like:
ShowViewModel<MyViewModel>(new MyParams { HasNoParams = true });
public void Init(MyParams myParams)
{
if (myParams.HasNoParams)
{
// do null flow here
}
else
{
// do non-null flow here
}
}
You can use Dictionary< TKey, TValue> as your params.
Related
I need to change a function that accepts one Expression with one property inside and give it the ability to work with 2 properties at least.
I have the following base class that contains nested ElementHelper class
public class DomainObjectViewModel<TModel> where TModel : DomainObject
{
public class ElementHelper
{
public static void Create<T1>(TModel model, Expression<Func<TModel, T1>> expression)
{
var getPropertyInfo = GetPropertyInfo(expression);
//Do cool stuff
}
private static PropertyInfo GetPropertyInfo<T1>(Expression<Func<TModel, T1>> propertyExpression)
{
return (PropertyInfo)((MemberExpression)propertyExpression.Body).Member;
}
}
}
-ElementHelper class contains a Create function that gets the propertyInfo of the expression and only works if you pass one property in the expression.
Then I have the following inherited class that uses the helper function in the constructor.
public class ProductViewModel : DomainObjectViewModel<ProductEditViewModel>
{
public ProductViewModel(ProductEditViewModel model)
{
//It works for one property in the Expression
ElementHelper.Create(model, x => x.LaunchDate);
//Give the ability to pass multiple paramenters in the expression
ElementHelper.Create(model, x => new { x.LaunchDate, x.ApplyLaunchDateChanges });
}
}
I think I can use NewExpression (new { x.LaunchDate, x.ApplyLaunchDateChanges }) in order to pass it a collection of properties, but I cannot make it work.
Would you use same approach?
How you can split the passed Expression so you can get the propertyinfo of each properties found in the NewExpression object?
Well, since ElementHelper.GetPropertyInfo is your own method, you can decide what is allowed to pass, and then handle it appropriately inside that method.
Currently you handle only MemberExpression, so that's why it works only with single property accessor. If you want to be able to pass new { ... }, you need to add support for NewExpression like this:
private static IEnumerable<PropertyInfo> GetPropertyInfo<T1>(Expression<Func<TModel, T1>> propertyExpression)
{
var memberExpression = propertyExpression.Body as MemberExpression;
if (memberExpression != null)
return Enumerable.Repeat((PropertyInfo)memberExpression.Member, 1);
var newExpression = propertyExpression.Body as NewExpression;
if (newExpression != null)
return newExpression.Arguments.Select(item => (PropertyInfo)((MemberExpression)item).Member);
return Enumerable.Empty<PropertyInfo>(); // or throw exception
}
While questions of this sort have been frequently asked, I think I have a more specific constraint that makes the problem a little more interesting. I am writing a client-side application in Dart using an MVC pattern. My goal is simple: listen for clicks on a button, trigger an async request to a back-end API, and present that data to the user.
Minimally, I have one each of a model, view, and controller class. The model class implements methods to make requests and bundle up the data it receives. The view class has the DOM subtree of interest as a field and implements methods to manipulate the elements therein. The controller has a single instance each of the model and view classes as its fields and registers event handlers on the elements of the view. The controller's event handlers fire off calls to the model to make requests and return data, which will then be passed to the view for rendering.
The issue arises when I attempt to capture the incoming data from the async request into an instance variable of the model. I'd like to keep everything nicely encapsulated (that's why I'm using Dart in the first place), and I'd like to avoid using a global variable to hold the data that comes from the async request. A minimal example of my current layout looks something like below. I've made all of the fields and methods public here for clarity's sake.
// view.dart
class FooView {
// The root element of the view with which we're concerned.
static final Element root = querySelector('#thisView');
FooView() { init(); }
void init() { root.hidden = false; }
// Appends the new data into an unordered list.
void update(List<Map<String,String>> list) {
UListElement container = root.querySelector('ul#dataContainer');
container
..hidden = true
..children.clear();
for ( Map<String,String> item in list ) {
container.append(new LIElement()
..id = item['id']
..text = item['text']
);
container.hidden = false;
}
// model.dart
class FooModel {
// Instance variable to hold processed data from the async request.
List<Map<String,String>> dataList;
// Makes async request, returning data to caller.
List<Map<String,String>> getData() {
HttpRequest
.getString('example.com/api/endpoint')
.then( (String data) {
dataList = JSON.decode(data);
});
return dataList;
}
}
// controller.dart
class FooController {
FooModel model;
FooView view;
FooController() {
model = new FooModel;
view = new FooView;
}
void registerHandlers() {
// When this button is clicked, the view is updated with data from the model.
ButtonElement myButton = view.root.querySelector('#myButton');
myButton.onClick.listen( (Event e) {
view.update(model.getData());
});
}
}
The errors I'm seeing involve the model.dataList field coming up null at the end of all of this. My first blush is that I do not understand scoping of callback functions. The way I first understood it, the callback would handle the request's data when it arrived and just set the instance variable when it was ready. Perhaps the instance variable is aliased and modified within the scope of the callback, but the variable I want to return is never touched.
I have thought about passing a Future object to a method of the view, which will then just do the processing itself and add the elements to the DOM as a side effect. That technique would break my MVC design (even more than it's broken now in this minimal working example).
It is also very possible that I am using asynchronous programming completely incorrectly. Thinking more on this, my async call is useless because I basically make a blocking call to view.update() in the controller when the event fires. Maybe I should pass a request Future to the controller, and fire the request's then() method from there when the event handler is triggered.
In Dart, in what scope do callback functions reside, and how can I get data out of them with minimal side effects and maximal encapsulation?
N.B. I hate to belabor this oft-discussed question, but I have read previous answers to similar questions to no avail.
The getData method initiates the asynchronous HTTP request then immediately returns before having received/parsed the response. That is why model.datalist is null.
To make this work with minimal effort, you can make getData synchronous:
(note: I changed the dataList type, just to make it work with the sample JSON service http://ip.jsontest.com/)
// model.dart
class FooModel {
// Instance variable to hold processed data from the async request.
Map<String, String> dataList;
// Makes async request, returning data to caller.
Map<String, String> getData() {
var request = new HttpRequest()
..open('GET', 'http://ip.jsontest.com/', async: false)
..send();
dataList = JSON.decode(request.responseText);
return dataList;
}
}
Though this may violate your objective, I agree with your concerns re: blocking call and would personally consider keeping the HTTP request asynchronous and making getData return a new future that references your model class or parsed data. Something like:
// model.dart
class FooModel {
// Instance variable to hold processed data from the async request.
Map<String,String> dataList;
// Makes async request, returning data to caller.
Future<Map<String, String>> getData() {
return HttpRequest
.getString('http://ip.jsontest.com/')
.then( (String data) {
dataList = JSON.decode(data);
return dataList;
});
}
}
and in the controller:
void registerHandlers() {
// When this button is clicked, the view is updated with data from the model.
ButtonElement myButton = FooView.root.querySelector('#myButton');
myButton.onClick.listen( (Event e) {
model.getData().then((Map<String, String> dataList) {
view.update(dataList);
});
});
}
You return datalist in getData before the HttpRequest has returned.
// Makes async request, returning data to caller.
List<Map<String,String>> getData() {
return HttpRequest // <== modified
.getString('example.com/api/endpoint')
.then( (String data) {
return JSON.decode(data); // <== modified
});
// return dataList; // <== modified
void registerHandlers() {
// When this button is clicked, the view is updated with data from the model.
ButtonElement myButton = view.root.querySelector('#myButton');
myButton.onClick.listen( (Event e) {
model.getData().then((data) => view.update(data)); // <== modified
});
}
You can use Stream to make your design loosely coupled and asynchronous:
class ModelChange {...}
class ViewChange {...}
abstract class Bindable<EventType> {
Stream<EventType> get updateNotification;
Stream<EventType> controllerEvents;
}
class Model implements Bindable<ModelChange> {
Stream<ModelChange> controllerEvents;
Stream<ModelChange> get updateNotification => ...
}
class View implements Bindable<ViewChange> {
Stream<ViewChange> controllerEvents;
Stream<ViewChange> get updateNotification => ...
}
class Controller {
final StreamController<ViewChange> viewChange = new StreamController();
final StreamController<ModelChange> modelChange = new StreamController();
Controller.bind(Bindable model, Bindable view) {
view.controllerEvents = viewChange.stream;
model.controllerEvents = modelChange.stream;
view.updateNotification.forEach((ViewChange vs) {
modelChange.add(onViewChange(vs));
});
model.updateNotification.forEach((ModelChange mc) {
viewChange.add(onModelChange(mc));
});
}
ModelChange onViewChange(ViewChange vc) => ...
ViewChange onModelChange(ModelChange mc) => ...
}
I've been playing with MVC3 with KnockoutJs for a few weeks and I've been wondering about something
say I have an mvc action which returns a simple list
public ActionResult AddFoos()
{
List<Foo> funds = new List<Foo>();
.. etc
return Json(funds.ToList(), JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet);
}
which is then passed into the view model
var viewModel = {
fooChocies: ko.mapping.fromJS([]),
fooOptions: ko.mapping.fromJS([]),
loadInitialData: function () {
ko.mapping.fromJS(serverData, dataMappingOptions, viewModel.fooOptions);
},
};
In my type Foo I also have properties that show or hide ui elements
var Foo = function (data, preselect) {
var self = this;
self.id = ko.observable(data.id);
self.Name = ko.observable(data.Name);
self.number = ko.observable('');
self.showProducts = ko.observable(false); <---
self.displayBigPanel = ko.observable(false); <---
}
My approach so far as been to dynamically create elements of the form
which passes through the ModelBinder and creates a List< Foo > as a parameter for controller action.
Finally the question...
When the user navigates back to this page I need to restore the UI with the fooChoices the user made.
It seems I have 2 choices with rebuilding the user selections (both via extension methods)
Use raw json as seen by
ko.toJSON(viewModel.fooChoices))
which in addition to basic model properties also provides info on hiding and displaying UI elements,
sb.Append("viewModel.fooCghoices= ko.mapping.fromJS(" + json + ");");
sb.Append("ko.applyBindings(viewModel);");
return new HtmlString(sb.ToString());
thus sending client ui info to the server and back
or
Manipulate the ViewModel directly in effect simulating the user actions
sb.Append("viewModel.fooChoices.push(new Foo(1509));");
sb.Append("viewModel.fooChoices()[0].selectedSubFoo = new Foo(273);");
sb.Append("viewModel.fooChoices()[0].showProducts(true);");
In either case it feels a bit off and that a better pattern is out there. Would like to know if one way is better than the other or none of the above.
Many Thanks
Presently, your controller method returns a list of Foo. Consider creating a more complex object that holds both your Foos and your choices.
public class FooViewModel
{
public List<Foo> Foos { get; set; };
public UserChoices { get; set; }
}
Change your controller method so that it returns FooViewModel. This means user choices will be returned along with any Foos you are interested in.
public ActionResult AddFoos()
{
// Are there any choices stored in session?
// Use those first, otherwise create a new UserChoices object
UserChoices choices =
Session["User.Choices"] as UserChoices ?? new UserChoices();
List<Foo> funds = new List<Foo>();
.. etc
FooViewModel vm = new FooViewModel() { Foos = funds; UserChoices = choices };
// Return the whole object, containing Choices and Foos
return Json(vm, JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet);
}
Also, consider some kind of action filter to allow you to pass complete objects easily. ObjectFilter is a good approach. It allows you to pass complex object structures easily without having to rely on specific markup.
http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/blogs/863/passing-json-into-an-asp-net-mvc-controller.aspx
ObjectFilter above a controller method. Pretty simple, just declaring that the controller should attempt to treat any incoming parameter called fooStuff as type FooViewModel.
[HttpPost,
ObjectFilter(Param = "fooStuff", RootType = typeof(FooViewModel)),
UnitOfWork]
public JsonResult ProcessFoos(FooViewModel fooStuff) {
By defining a corresponding JavaScript view model, you can just convert the whole thing to a json string and pass it to the controller method fully populated.
So, example of corresponding js vm would be:-
var fooViewModel = function(data) {
var self = this;
self.Foos = ko.observableArray(data.Foos);
self.UserChoices = ko.observable(data.UserChoices);
// Don't worry about properties or methods that don't exist
// on the C# end of things. They'll just be ignored.
self.usefulJSOnlyMethod = function() {
// behaviour
};
}
var userChoice = function(data) {
var self = this;
self.DinnerId = ko.observable(data.DinnerId);
}
Typical call to a controller method decorated by ObjectFilter would be something like this ( assuming self is a fooViewModel ):-
var queryData = ko.mapping.toJSON(self);
$.ajax(
//...
data: queryData,
Any matching ( same name, same type case-sensitive ) property from the js vm will automatically end up in the fooStuff parameter of your controller method. Time to save those choices:-
Also note that I'm persisting user choices in the session here. This'll allow them to be picked up by any other controller method which may need them ( example in AddFoos above ).
[HttpPost,
ObjectFilter(Param = "fooStuff", RootType = typeof(FooViewModel)),
UnitOfWork]
public JsonResult ProcessFoos(FooViewModel fooStuff)
{
// hey! I have a fully mapped FooViewModel right here!
// ( _fooServices.ProcessFoos will return updated version of viewmodel )
FooViewModel vm = _fooServices.ProcessFoos(fooStuff);
// What about those choices?
// Put them in the session at this point in case anyone else comes asking
// after them.
Session["User.Choices"] = vm.UserChoices;
return Json(vm);
}
Because we've:-
Defined a better C# view model
Defined a corresponding JS view model
Including UserChoices as part of that view model
....restoring the choice is simple at this point. Reference the part of the view model that contains the user's selected choice.
<select id="dinnerChoice"
data-bind="value: UserChoices.DinnerId"
>
</select>
Is it possible for a Controller method to handle all Posted items which derive from a particular base class? The idea is to be able to dispatch Commands by posting them to an endpoint. When I try the following, the "cmd" parameter in the Post method is always null.
Example
//the model:
public abstract class Command{
public int CommandId{get; set;}
}
public class CommandA:Command{
public string StringParam{get; set;}
}
public class CommandB:Command{
public DateTime DateParam{get; set;}
}
//and in the controller:
public HttpResponseMessage Post([FromBody]Command cmd)
{
//cmd parameter is always null when I Post a CommandA or CommandB
//it works if I have separate Post methods for each Command type
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
if (cmd is CommandA)
{
var cmdA = (CommandA)cmd;
// do whatever
}
if (cmd is CommandB)
{
var cmdB = (CommandB)cmd;
//do whatever
}
//placeholder return stuff
var response = Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.Created);
var relativePath = "/api/ToDo/" + cmd.TestId.ToString();
response.Headers.Location = new Uri(Request.RequestUri, relativePath);
return response;
}
throw new HttpResponseException(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest);
}
Again, when I try this approach the Post method gets called, but the parameter is always null from the framework. However if I replace it with a Post method with a specific CommandA parameter type, it works.
Is what I'm attempting possible? Or does every message type need a separate handler method in the controller?
If you are sending data in Json format, then following blog gives more details about how hierarchies deserialization can be achieved in json.net:
http://dotnetbyexample.blogspot.com/2012/02/json-deserialization-with-jsonnet-class.html
I'm having trouble getting PEX to automatically cover methods calling Linq extension methods, such as Where() and Contains() in this example:
public class MyEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
}
public interface IWithQueryable
{
IQueryable<MyEntity> QueryableSet();
}
public class ConsumerOfIhaveIQueryable
{
private readonly IWithQueryable _withIQueryable;
public ConsumerOfIhaveIQueryable(IWithQueryable withIQueryable)
{
// <pex>
Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(
withIQueryable != null, "withIQueryable");
// </pex>
_withIQueryable = withIQueryable;
}
public IEnumerable<MyEntity> GetEntitiesByIds(IEnumerable<int> ids)
{
Contract.Requires<ArgumentNullException>(ids != null, "ids");
// <pex>
Contract.Assert
(this._withIQueryable.QueryableSet() != (IQueryable<MyEntity>)null);
// </pex>
IEnumerable<MyEntity> entities =
_withIQueryable.QueryableSet().Where(
entity => ids.Contains(entity.Id));
if (entities.Count() != ids.Count())
{
return null;
}
return entities;
}
}
[PexClass(typeof(ConsumerOfIhaveIQueryable))]
[PexAllowedExceptionFromTypeUnderTest(typeof(InvalidOperationException))]
[PexAllowedExceptionFromTypeUnderTest(typeof(ArgumentException), AcceptExceptionSubtypes = true)]
[TestClass]
public partial class ConsumerOfIhaveIQueryableTest
{
[PexMethod]
public IEnumerable<MyEntity> GetEntitiesByIds(
[PexAssumeUnderTest]ConsumerOfIhaveIQueryable target,
int[] ids)
{
var result = target.GetEntitiesByIds(ids);
PexAssert.IsTrue(result.Count() == ids.Length);
return result;
}
}
When I'm running PEX exploration on this PexMethod I'm seeing the following problems:
I keep getting the same exception and PEX keeps suggesting the same "invariant" fix in the form of the Contract.Assert that you see in the // region:
I believe the problem is somehow related to how Pex relates to Linq but I'm not sure
--- Description
failing test: ArgumentNullException, Value cannot be null.
Parameter name: source
[TestMethod]
[PexGeneratedBy(typeof(ConsumerOfIhaveIQueryableTest))]
[PexRaisedException(typeof(ArgumentNullException))]
public void GetEntitiesByIdsThrowsArgumentNullException385()
{
using (PexChooseBehavedBehavior.Setup())
{
SIWithQueryable sIWithQueryable;
ConsumerOfIhaveIQueryable consumerOfIhaveIQueryable;
IEnumerable<MyEntity> iEnumerable;
sIWithQueryable = new SIWithQueryable();
consumerOfIhaveIQueryable =
ConsumerOfIhaveIQueryableFactory.Create((IWithQueryable)sIWithQueryable);
int[] ints = new int[0];
iEnumerable = this.GetEntitiesByIds(consumerOfIhaveIQueryable, ints);
}
}
--- Exception details
System.ArgumentNullException: Value cannot be null.
Parameter name: source at System.Linq.IQueryable'1 System.Linq.Queryable.Where(System.Linq.IQueryable'1 source, System.Linq.Expressions.Expression'1> predicate)
c:\users\moran\documents\visual studio 2010\Projects\PexTuts\PexIQueryable\PexIQueryable\ConsumerOfIhaveIQueryable.cs(29): at System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable'1 PexIQueryable.ConsumerOfIhaveIQueryable.GetEntitiesByIds(System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable`1 ids)
c:\users\moran\documents\visual studio 2010\Projects\PexTuts\PexIQueryable\PexIQueryable.Tests\ConsumerOfIhaveIQueryableTest.cs(34): at System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable'1 PexIQueryable.ConsumerOfIhaveIQueryableTest.GetEntitiesByIds(PexIQueryable.ConsumerOfIhaveIQueryable target, System.Int32[] ids)
I can't get PEX to generate relevant inputs. As you can see, I tried to "help" it by adding a PexAssert and a branch in my code, but this branch is never covered, even though it should be relatively simple to generate a code that would walk that path. PEX only tries to pass null or an empty array as the list of Ids (I read somewhere that it is easier for PEX to work with arrays (int[]) rather than IEnumerable.
Would love to get some comments on this...
BTW, this is my first SO post, Hope I didn't spam with too much code and info.
Moran
After some time setting up the code for this, I've made a few assumptions. I'm assuming that you're stubbing the IWithQueryable via a Moles stub and also that the NullArgumentException occurs when you remove the Contract assertion that the QueryableSet() method doesn't return null.
As for the code, IMO the more code the better, as long as it's relevant- far better to have too much than too little to go on, so that's fine. As above, do try to make clear all the assumptions in the code (e.g. the Moles stubbing (as there's different ways to achieve this and it's something one has to assume).
I'm not 100% sure what you're asking. The code is failing because the stubbed IWithQueryable object doesn't have an implmementation for the QueryableSet() method and that method returns null. The PexAssert here won't help it figure out how to create a LINQ provider, which is what you're asking it to do. The PexChooseBehavedBehavior.Setup() simply replaces any calls to delegates on the Moles stubs (which don't have a custom delegate) with the default behaviour which is default(T), so that's why the source is null- the QueryableSet() is initialised to null.
You can solve this in a few ways (at least in the sense of providing a way of creating the QueryableSet() method). You can create a factory method to generate either the whole SIWithQueryable, or just the QueryableSet delegate. This is something that Pex suggests (however, with me it got the types and namespaces muddled-up). For instance:
/// <summary>A factory for Microsoft.Moles.Framework.MolesDelegates+Func`1[System.Linq.IQueryable`1[StackOverflow.Q9968801.MyEntity]] instances</summary>
public static partial class MolesDelegatesFactory
{
/// <summary>A factory for Microsoft.Moles.Framework.MolesDelegates+Func`1[System.Linq.IQueryable`1[StackOverflow.Q9968801.MyEntity]] instances</summary>
[PexFactoryMethod(typeof(MolesDelegates.Func<IQueryable<MyEntity>>))]
public static MolesDelegates.Func<IQueryable<MyEntity>> CreateFunc()
{
throw new InvalidOperationException();
// TODO: Edit factory method of Func`1<IQueryable`1<MyEntity>>
// This method should be able to configure the object in all possible ways.
// Add as many parameters as needed,
// and assign their values to each field by using the API.
}
/// <summary>A factory for Microsoft.Moles.Framework.MolesDelegates+Func`1[System.Linq.IQueryable`1[StackOverflow.Q9968801.MyEntity]] instances</summary>
[PexFactoryMethod(typeof(SIWithQueryable))]
public static SIWithQueryable Create()
{
var siWithQueryable = new SIWithQueryable();
siWithQueryable.QueryableSet = () => { throw new InvalidOperationException(); };
return siWithQueryable;
// TODO: Edit factory method of Func`1<IQueryable`1<MyEntity>>
// This method should be able to configure the object in all possible ways.
// Add as many parameters as needed,
// and assign their values to each field by using the API.
}
}
and then hook it up to the test method with one of the two lines assigning sIWithQueryable:
[TestMethod]
[PexGeneratedBy(typeof(ConsumerOfIhaveIQueryableTest))]
public void GetEntitiesByIdsThrowsArgumentNullException678()
{
SIWithQueryable sIWithQueryable;
// Either this for the whole object.
sIWithQueryable = MolesDelegatesFactory.Create();
// Or this for just that delegate.
sIWithQueryable = new SIWithQueryable();
sIWithQueryable.QueryableSet = MolesDelegatesFactory.CreateFunc();
ConsumerOfIhaveIQueryable consumerOfIhaveIQueryable;
IEnumerable<MyEntity> iEnumerable;
consumerOfIhaveIQueryable = ConsumerOfIhaveIQueryableFactory.Create((IWithQueryable) sIWithQueryable);
int[] ints = new int[0];
iEnumerable = this.GetEntitiesByIds(consumerOfIhaveIQueryable, ints);
}
This will then call your factory methods when creating the stub for IWithQueryable. This is still a problem, as regenerating the explorations will wipe out the stub setup.
If you provide the parameterless factory method to create the stub (MolesDelegatesFactory.CreateFunc()), then Pex will know about this and generate the tests to use it. So, it will correctly manage the behaviour across test regenerations. Unfortuantely, Pex suggests creating this delegate as a factory method- however, it is never called, the default implementation is always used, it seems one has to mock the parent type.
However, I'm wondering why you're creating an interface IWithQueryable that simple wraps another, and also, what you expect to do with the IQueryable. In order to do anything very useful, you'll have a lot of work going on to deal with the IQueryable interface - the Provider and Expression mainly, you'll pretty-much have to write a mock query provider, which will not be easy.