Captured argument has empty Values about fakeiteasy HOT 6 CLOSED

@svisser, @thomaslevesque pointed out in sidechat (but didn't want to publicly shame me) that I erred earlier.

This is similar to defining any constraint on a faked method without specifying an action, which it what "registers" the configuration. It's a common mistake and is diagnostic FakeItEasy0001 in the FakeItEasy Analyzers.

In fact, FakeItEasy0001 would not be triggered. It detects an A.CallTo(…) with no followup call at all. The Analyzer would see .MustNotHaveHappened() and therefore not complain.

The correct statement is that .MustNotHaveHappened() doesn't perform any actual configuration on the fake, so the capturing argument is never hooked up to any call handlers.

from fakeiteasy.

Hi, thanks both for clarifying how this works. I'm fairly new to using this library and this helps with understanding how to use it as intended.

Thanks also for the documentation change, that should be helpful as well. I'm happy for the issue to be closed.

from fakeiteasy.

The docs have been updated.

from fakeiteasy.

Hi @svisser,

You need to configure the call for the capture to work. You're only asserting it.

If I add this:

A.CallTo(() => obj.GenerateValue(capturedInput._)).Returns("hello");

It works as expected.

TBH, I don't even know what it would means to use capturedInput._ in an assertion. We might need to update the docs to clarify this.

from fakeiteasy.

This is similar to defining any constraint on a faked method without specifying an action, which it what "registers" the configuration. It's a common mistake and is diagnostic FakeItEasy0001 in the FakeItEasy Analyzers.

TBH, I don't even know what it would means to use capturedInput._ in an assertion.

I see it as a semi-convenient way to provide some constraint. Avoids having to write A<TestObject>._. That being said, I wouldn't expect there to be much need for it. I may be wrong, but I'd think most time when you're using a capturing argument at all, you'd examine the captured values instead of verifying that certain calls were made.

Still, there's no harm in updating the documentation as you suggest, @thomaslevesque.

from fakeiteasy.

Glad it helped, @svisser. Sorry for your pain. Do consider using the Analyzer to help catch bugs that we couldn't make impossible to code up.

from fakeiteasy.