I need to test that a particular Func is called in Method List ex:
public class ProductController : BaseController
{
private readonly Func<IProductRepository> prodRepo;
public ProductController(Func<IProductRepository> _prodRepo)
{
prodRepo = _prodRepo;
}
public ActionResult List(string applicationID)
{
var products = prodRepo().GetForApp(applicationID).ToList();
return PartialView("_List",products);
}
}
in this case i need to verify that prodRepo().GetForApp(applicationID) whase called.
Do you really need to verify that the Func is called? Or do you need to verify that the ProductController retrieves the products correctly?
If it's the latter, just set up a mock of the IProductRepository to return some products, pass it in via a lambda, and assert that the products you get are the right ones. Generally, if something is providing information (the "arrange" phase in act / arrange / assert, or the "given" in given / when / then) then you want a stub rather than a mock.
The only time you really need to use a mock and verify that something has been called is when the class under test is delegating a responsibility - for instance, saving a product in the repository.
Also, please check out Moq... it's a bit easier to set up stubs in Moq IMO.
I advice you to write your test in Arrange-Act-Assert style. You could read more at Ayende's blog
Arrange phase
First define MockRepository and expectations:
var mockRepository = new MockRepository();
var repository = mockRepository.StrictMock<IProductRepository>();
using(mockRepository.Record())
{
repository.Expect(x => x.GetForApp(Arg<string>.Is.Anything)).Return(new string[0]).Repeat.Once();
}
var productController = new ProductController((Func<IProductRepository>)(() => repository));
Act phase
Perform action:
productController.List("testApplicationID");
Assert phase
Verify results:
repository.VerifyAllExpectations();
Missing interface IProductRepository
public interface IProductRepository
{
IEnumerable<string> GetForApp(string applicationID);
}
Related
I'm making a versioned api with mvc6 and to do that I want to be able to specify for an action on which api version it should work.
My api route is: /api/{version}/... and so I want at a certain action to inspect the version route value and to see if this action is available for that version.
I want to be able to specify that as an attribute on the api action, so for example:
// This is the base api controller
[Route("api/{version:regex(^v[[0-9]].[[0-9]]$)}/[controller]")]
public abstract class ApiControllerBase { ... }
// This is an action in one of the sub classes
[HttpGet("foo")]
[ApiVersion("0.1", "0.2")] // Here! (this is params string[])
public object Foo()
{
// return
}
// This is an action in another sub class
[HttpGet("foo")]
[ApiVersion("1.0")]
public object Foo()
{
// return
}
My question is what should ApiVersion implement or extend for this to work? I don't believe action filters work as I want because I don't want to return a 404 when this doesn't match because other actions inside other controllers might be able to handle this (Later I might have HomeController with common actions and Home2Controller with extended actions that work only for 1.0).
Note that I'm not asking for an implementation of ApiVersionAttribute, I just need to know what mvc infrastructure I should hook into (action filters, route constraints, ...) that will let me create an attribute that can look into route values and say if this action is a match.
It took 4 hours analyzing the mvc6 source but it was worth it. I solved this using an action attribute implementing Microsoft.AspNet.Mvc.ActionConstraints.IActionConstraint.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = true, Inherited = true)]
public class ApiVersionAttribute : Attribute, IActionConstraint
{
public ApiVersionAttribute(string version)
{
Version = version;
}
public string Version { get; }
public int Order => 0;
public bool Accept(ActionConstraintContext context)
{
var routeData = context.RouteContext.RouteData;
// return ...
}
}
And then on a certain action:
[HttpGet("foo")]
[ApiVersion("0.1")]
public object Foo()
{
// return ...
}
I am exposing my repository operations through web api. Repository has been implemented with Entity framework and Unit Of Work Pattern. I have many instances of the same database. Each one represent the data of a different Client. Now the issue is how can I set the connection string dynamically through each webapi call? Should I get connection string parameter with each call ? Or I should host web Api per client ?
Based on the information provided, I would use the same controller and look up the connection string rather than rather than hosting separate Web API instances for each client. There would be more complexity in hosting multiple instances and given the only difference indicated is the connection string, I do not think the complexity would be justified.
The first thing we will need to do is determine which client is calling in order to get the appropriate connection string. This could be done with tokens, headers, request data, or routing. Routing is simplest and most generally accessible to clients, so I will demonstrate using it; however, carefully consider your requirements in deciding how you will make the determination.
[Route( "{clientId}" )]
public Foo Get( string clientId ) { /* ... */ }
Next we need to get the right DbContext for the client. We want to keep using DI but that is complicated in that we do not know until after the Controller is created what connection string is needed to construct the object. Therefore, we need to inject some form of factory rather than the object itself. In this case we will represent this as a Func<string, IUnitOfWork> with the understanding it takes the 'clientId' as a string and returns an appropriately instantiated IUnitOfWork. We could alternatively use a named interface for this.
[RoutePrefix("foo")]
public class FooController : ApiController
{
private Func<string, IUnitOfWork> unitOfWorkFactory;
public FooController( Func<string, IUnitOfWork> unitOfWorkFactory )
{
this.unitOfWorkFactory = unitOfWorkFactory;
}
[Route( "{clientId}" )]
public Foo Get( string clientId )
{
var unitOfWork = unitOfWorkFactory(clientId);
// ...
}
}
All that remains is configuring our dependency injection container to provide us that Func<string, IUnitOfWork>. This could vary significantly between implementation. The following is one possible way to do it in Autofac.
protected override void Load( ContainerBuilder builder )
{
// It is expected `MyDbContext` has a constructor that takes the connection string as a parameter
// This registration may need to be tweaked depending on what other constructors you have.
builder.Register<MyDbContext>().ForType<DbContext>().InstancePerRequest();
// It is expected `UnitOfWork`'s constructor takes a `DbContext` as a parameter
builder.RegisterType<UnitOfWork>().ForType<IUnitOfWork>().InstancePerRequest();
builder.Register<Func<string, Bar>>(
c =>
{
var dbContextFactory = c.Resolve<Func<string, DbContext>>();
var unitOfWorkFactory = c.Resolve<Func<DbContext, IUnitOfWork>>();
return clientId =>
{
// You may have injected another type to help with this
var connectionString = GetConnectionStringForClient(clientId);
return unitOfWorkFactory(dbContextFactory(connectionString));
};
});
}
Autofac is used since comments indicates Autofac is currently being used, though similar results would be possible with other containers.
With that the controller should be able to be instantiated and the appropriate connection string will be used for each request.
Example registration based on linked project:
builder.Register<Func<string, IEmployeeService>>(
c =>
{
var dbContextFactory = c.Resolve<Func<string, IMainContext>>();
var unitOfWorkFactory = c.Resolve<Func<IMainContext, IUnitOfWork>>();
var repositoryFactory = c.Resolve<Func<IMainContext, IEmployeeRepository>>();
var serviceFactory = c.Resolve<Func<IUnitOfWork, IEmployeeService>>();
return clientId =>
{
// You may have injected another type to help with this
var connectionString = GetConnectionStringForClient(clientId);
IMainContext dbContext = dbContextFactory(connectionString);
IUnitOfWork unitOfWork = unitOfWorkFactory(dbContext);
IEmployeeRepository employeeRepository = repositoryFactory(dbContext);
unitOfWork.employeeRepositoty = employeeRepository;
return serviceFactory(unitOfWork);
};
});
If you find the registration grows too cumbersome because of needing to do a little wiring manually, you probably need to look at updating (or creating a new) container after you have determined the client so that you can rely more on the container.
You can change the connectionstring per DbContext instance
Example:
public class AwesomeContext : DbContext
{
public AwesomeContext (string connectionString)
: base(connectionString)
{
}
public DbSet<AwesomePeople> AwesomePeoples { get; set; }
}
And then use your DbContext like this:
using(AwesomeContext context = new AwesomeContext("newConnectionString"))
{
return context.AwesomePeoples.ToList();
}
Depending on how many ConnectionStrings there are you can make a DB table for the client / constring mapping or save it in the solution (array for example).
If you can't/don't want to change the constructor you can do it later as well
Add this to your DbContext override:
public void SetConnectionString(string connectionString)
{
this.Database.Connection.ConnectionString = connectionString;
}
And call the method before you do any DB operations:
using(AwesomeContext context = new AwesomeContext())
{
context.SetConnectionString(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["newConnectionString"].ConnectionString)
return context.AwesomePeoples.ToList();
}
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.
I'm using EF 4.1 to build a domain model. I have a Task class with a Validate(string userCode) method and in it I want to ensure the user code maps to a valid user in the database, so:
public static bool Validate(string userCode)
{
IDbSet<User> users = db.Set<User>();
var results = from u in users
where u.UserCode.Equals(userCode)
select u;
return results.FirstOrDefault() != null;
}
I can use Moq to mock IDbSet no problem. But ran into trouble with the Where call:
User user = new User { UserCode = "abc" };
IList<User> list = new List<User> { user };
var users = new Mock<IDbSet<User>>();
users.Setup(x => x.Where(It.IsAny<Expression<Func<User, bool>>>())).Returns(list.AsQueryable);
Initialization method JLTi.iRIS3.Tests.TaskTest.SetUp threw exception.
System.NotSupportedException: System.NotSupportedException: Expression
references a method that does not belong to the mocked object:
x => x.Where<User>(It.IsAny<Expression`1>()).
Other than creating a level of indirection (eg, using a ServiceLocator to get an object that runs the LINQ and then mock that method) I can't think of how else to test this, but I want to make sure there is no way before I introduce another layer. And I can see this kind of LINQ queries will be needed quite often so the service objects can quickly spiral out of control.
Could some kind soul help? Thanks!
There is an article on MSDN highlighting how to mock using moq:
The gist of it is to represent linq to entities operations with linq to objects.
var mockSet = new Mock<DbSet<Blog>>();
mockSet.As<IQueryable<Blog>>().Setup(m => m.Provider).Returns(data.Provider);
mockSet.As<IQueryable<Blog>>().Setup(m => m.Expression).Returns(data.Expression);
mockSet.As<IQueryable<Blog>>().Setup(m => m.ElementType).Returns(data.ElementType);
mockSet.As<IQueryable<Blog>>().Setup(m => m.GetEnumerator()).Returns(data.GetEnumerator());
As Ladislav points out there are disadvantages to this as Linq To Objects is simply different to Linq to Entities so it may result in false positives. But it now being an MSDN article it does point that it is at least possible and perhaps recommended in some cases?
One thing that may of changed since the original answers to this post is that the Entity Framework team have opened up areas of Entity Framework in EF 6.0 to make it easier to mock it's inners.
Although I have not tried this, because IDBSet implements IEnumerable you might have to mock the enumerator method so the linq statements will pick up your list of users. You don't actually want to mock linq but by the looks of your code you want to test whether you are finding the right user based on the UserCode which I think is a valid unit test.
var user = new User { UserCode = "abc" };
var list = new List<User> { user };
var users = new Mock<IDbSet<User>>();
users.Setup(x => x.GetEnumerator()).Returns(list.GetEnumerator());
You might get a conflict with the non-generic version of the GetEnumerator but it this might help you on the right track.
Then you have to then place the mocked object on the data context which depends on other code that we don't see.
As I know Moq is able to set up only virtual methods of mocked object itself but you are trying to set up extensions (static) method - no way! These methods are absolutely outside of your mock scope.
Moreover that code is hard to test and requires too much initialization to be able to test it. Use this instead:
internal virtual IQueryable<User> GetUserSet()
{
return db.Set<User>();
}
public bool Validate(string userCode)
{
IQueryable<User> users = GetUserSet();
var results = from u in users
where u.UserCode.Equals(userCode)
select u;
return results.FirstOrDefault() != null;
}
You will just need to set up GetUserSet to return your list. Such testing has some major issues:
You are not testing the real implementation - in case of EF mocking sets is stupid approach because once you do it you change linq-to-entities to linq-to-objects. Those two are totally different and linq-to-entities is only small subset of linq-to-objects = your unit tests can pass with linq-to-objects but your code will fail at runtime.
Once you use this approach you cannot use Include because include is dependent on DbQuery / DbSet. Again you need integration test to use it.
This doesn't test that your lazy loading works
The better approach is removing your linq queries from Validate method - just call them as another virtual method of the object. Unit test your Validate method with mocked query methods and use integration tests to test queries themselves.
I found it easier just to write the stub:
internal class FakeDbSet<T> : IDbSet<T>where T : class
{
readonly HashSet<T> _data;
readonly IQueryable _query;
public FakeDbSet()
{
_data = new HashSet<T>();
_query = _data.AsQueryable();
}
public virtual T Find(params object[] keyValues)
{
throw new NotImplementedException("Derive from FakeDbSet<T> and override Find");
}
public T Add(T item)
{
_data.Add(item);
return item;
}
public T Remove(T item)
{
_data.Remove(item);
return item;
}
public T Attach(T item)
{
_data.Add(item);
return item;
}
public void Detach(T item)
{
_data.Remove(item);
}
Type IQueryable.ElementType
{
get { return _query.ElementType; }
}
Expression IQueryable.Expression
{
get { return _query.Expression; }
}
IQueryProvider IQueryable.Provider
{
get { return _query.Provider; }
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return _data.GetEnumerator();
}
IEnumerator<T> IEnumerable<T>.GetEnumerator()
{
return _data.GetEnumerator();
}
public TDerivedEntity Create<TDerivedEntity>() where TDerivedEntity : class, T
{
return Activator.CreateInstance<TDerivedEntity>();
}
public T Create()
{
return Activator.CreateInstance<T>();
}
public ObservableCollection<T> Local
{
get
{
return new ObservableCollection<T>(_data);
}
}
I'm trying to write a generic method parameter validation functionality that can be chained (fluent interface) to attach more and more validations/checks like:
public void SomeMethod(User user, string description)
{
ParameterHelper
.Create(() => user)
.RejectNull();
ParameterHelper
.Create(() => description)
.RejectNull()
.RejectEmptyString();
// now this would be luxurious
ParameterHelper
.Create(() => new { user = user, desc = description })
.RejectNull(o => o.user)
.RejectNull(o => o.desc)
.RejectEmptyString(o => o.desc);
}
I would like to use this helper class to test method parameters for certain values before using them (most of the time null will be tested).
Current state of affairs
I first started writing static helper class without the Create() method like:
public static class ParameterHelper
{
public static void RejectNull(Expression<Func<T>> expr)
{
if (expr.Compile()().Equals(default(T)))
{
MemberExpression param = (MemberExpression)expr.Body;
throw new ArgumentNullException(param.Member.Name);
}
}
}
But this doesn't allow chaining. That's why I created the Create() method that would return something that can be used by chained extension methods.
The problem
I would like to avoid multiple Compile() calls, so basically my Create() method should return Func<T> and reject methods should be extension methods of Func<T>.
If my Create() does return Func<T> I don't get the chance to read parameter names that should be supplied to various exceptions (using MemberExpression).
If I return Expression<Func<T>> instead I will have to call Compile() in each Reject extension method.
Questions
Is there a C# library that already does this kind of chaining?
If not, what do you suggest how this should be done? Any examples from the web would be warmly welcome.
Additional note
I should point out that complex/long validation invocation code is not an option here, because my current validation is done like:
if (user == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("user");
}
or
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(description))
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("description");
}
Which has two major drawbacks:
I repeat the same lines of code over and over
it uses magic strings
So validation should be done with a one liner per check as described above in the desired scenario.
There is a simple way to implement such a fluent interface. Your 'ParameterHelper.Create' method should return an instance of some class (this class is named Requirements below). This instance should hold the expression which was passed to Create. Also this class should have Require... instance methods which will validate expression and return this. Requirements class can be a private class inside ParameterHelper. I would also introduce an interface for this requirements chain (this interface is named IRequirements below. Sample:
public static class ParameterHelper
{
public static IRequirements Create<T>(Expression<Func<T>> expression)
{
return new Requirements{ Expression = expression };
}
private class Requirements<T> : IRequirements
{
public readonly Expression<Func<T>> Expression { get; set; }
public IRequirements RejectNull()
{
if (Expression .Compile()().Equals(default(T)))
{
MemberExpression param = (MemberExpression)Expression.Body;
throw new ArgumentNullException(param.Member.Name);
}
return this;
}
// other Require... methods implemented in the same way
}
}
public interface IRequirements
{
IRequirements RejectNull();
}
This approach will allow you implementing your luxurious solution - you just need to add a corresponding parameters to Reject... methods. Also you will probably need to make IRequirements interface generic.
Robert,
I have a library that solves this problem. It is called Bytes2you.Validation (Project). It is fast, extensible, intuitive and easy-to-use C# library providing fluent APIs for argument validation.
It focuses exactly on the problem that you want to solve, but does not use expressions. This is so, because they are a lot slower than just passing the argument name. For a library like that, that is designed to be used everywhere the performance is one of the most critical features.
For example:
Guard.WhenArgument(stringArgument,"stringArgument").IsNullOrEmpty().IsEqual("xxx").Throw();
// Which means - when stringArgument is null or empty OR is equal to "xxx" we will throw exception. If it is null, we will throw ArgumentNullException. If it is equal to "xxx", we will throw ArgumentException.