IType.IsAbsract and .IsInterface aren't mutually exclusive (and apply to primitives sometimes?) about ntypewriter HOT 7 CLOSED

Okay, so I figured out part of my problem, there's double wrapping so there's an outer type that I wasn't aware of.

However, I don't think IQueryable should be testing as an abstract interface?

from ntypewriter.

It looks like from the compiler's perspective interface is an abstract type. I do not understand your problem, and the code that you provided definitely does not give the above results. Bool is a primitive type, thus TypescriptModelName will end on the first if.

public IQueryable<bool> Foo()
{
    return null;
}

public bool Foo2()
{
    return false;
}

{{- for method in class.Methods | Symbols.ThatArePublic }}
    {{ method.Name  }}  
    {{ method.ReturnType}}
    {{ Custom.TypescriptModelName method.ReturnType }}
    {{ method.ReturnType.IsAbstract }}
    {{ method.ReturnType.IsInterface }}
    {{ method.ReturnType.IsPrimitive }}
{{- end }}

Foo  
IQueryable<bool>
boolean
true
true
false
Foo2  
bool
boolean
false
false
true

from ntypewriter.

from ntypewriter.

Just because you can't use the abstract keyword when typing an interface, that doesn't mean an interface is not abstract.

Consider this about abstract classes:

• You can't instantiate abstract classes with new. The same is true for interfaces.
• When inheriting from an abstract class, you have to implement all abstract methods. This is similar to interfaces, when you implement an interface you have to implement all methods.

Interfaces are abstract.

If you think this is incorrect, then reflection is incorrect. The following writes "True":

Console.WriteLine(typeof(IEnumerable).IsAbstract); // True

from ntypewriter.

from ntypewriter.

Reflection is not wrong, it is how the C# language was designed. And you will find many more similar cases when you spend more time with static code analysis.

from ntypewriter.

I disagree.

from ntypewriter.