Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

StackOverflow Point

StackOverflow Point Navigation

  • Web Stories
  • Badges
  • Tags
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Web Stories
  • Badges
  • Tags
Home/ Questions/Q 241280
Next
Alex Hales
  • 0
Alex HalesTeacher
Asked: August 10, 20222022-08-10T03:35:34+00:00 2022-08-10T03:35:34+00:00In: C#, moq, Unit Testing, unit-testing

c# – How do I Moq a method that has an optional argument in its signature without explicitly specifying it or using an overload?

  • 0

[ad_1]

I believe your only choice right now is to explicitly include the bool parameter in the setup for Foo.

I don’t think it defeats the purpose of specifying a default value. The default value is a convenience for calling code, but I think that you should be explicit in your tests. Say you could leave out specifying the bool parameter. What happens if, in future, someone changes the default value of b to true? This will lead to failing tests (and rightfully so), but they will be more difficult to fix because of the hidden assumption that b is false. Explicitly specifying the bool parameter has another benefit: it improves the readability of your tests. Someone going through them will quickly know that there’s one Foo function that accepts two parameters. That’s my 2 cents, at least 🙂

As for specifying it every time you mock it, don’t duplicate code: create and/or initialise the mock in a function, so that you only have a single point of change. If you really want to, you can overcome Moq’s apparent short-coming here by duplicating Foo‘s parameters into this initialisation function:

public void InitFooFuncOnFooMock(Mock<IFoo> fooMock, string a, bool b = false)
{
    if(!b)
    {
        fooMock.Setup(mock => mock.Foo(a, b)).Returns(false);
    }
    else
    {
        ...
    }
}

[ad_2]

  • 0 0 Answers
  • 4 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report
Leave an answer

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

Browse

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Related Questions

  • xcode - Can you build dynamic libraries for iOS and ...

    • 0 Answers
  • bash - How to check if a process id (PID) ...

    • 325 Answers
  • database - Oracle: Changing VARCHAR2 column to CLOB

    • 295 Answers
  • What's the difference between HEAD, working tree and index, in ...

    • 292 Answers
  • Amazon EC2 Free tier - how many instances can I ...

    • 0 Answers

Stats

  • Questions : 43k

Subscribe

Login

Forgot Password?

Footer

Follow

© 2022 Stackoverflow Point. All Rights Reserved.

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.