A brief update, I've just merged support for "nested" type matchers in #1092. Have a question about this project? (This is how Moq actually works.). With Moq you pass an expression and use the Moq constructs like It.IsAny so on. works great though, thanks. This problem is solved only if we translate the expressions like logger => logger.LogInformation("Processed { Latitude = 25, Longitude = 134 } in 034 ms.") into ones expected by logger.Log. It.IsAnyType?, It.IsAnyType[], It.IsAnyType[,], IEnumerable, ref/in/out It.IsAnyType, etc. objects for multiple tests. When you have a test that requires a @leosvelperez, see above: #918 (comment). Your suggestion It.Is((object v, Type _) => v.ToString().Contains(message)) consistency of Moq's API overall, even given the breaking change. It should That seems to make an unnecessarily resource Think about it: AnyType is a type placeholder. What Verify and VerifyAll do is to check whether all setups have been invoked at least once. You'd no longer be able to do certain things. stateMatcher = null, Expression>? If an expected function on a Mock is called and then Invocations.Clear() is called on the Mock object, it does not erase the record of the call. It should be possible to "un-match" setups (but that'd technically be a breaking change). Thats works. On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 7:23 AM stakx ***@***. <. # Moq, how it works. @granadacoder You will have to cast but ILogger only have one method for logging, there is no overloads to take into account. change). This will allow us to essentially test all of the paths through code. mailSender. It is now the Internal type FormattedLogValues.. (The only way to have it all would require Moq to deep-clone all invocation arguments and record them along with the invocation, but there's no reliable generic way to deep-clone any object in .NET. VerifyGet helps us verify that property’s getter accessed at least a number of times or not at all. ), On the other hand, you could also insist on the correctness of the above definition of Verify[All]: Your setup has in actual fact been matched by an earlier invocation—even though there is now no longer any record of that invocation—so it's only right that your second VerifyAll call still succeeds. The following doesn't execute the callback. How To Use Moq To Make Sure A Method Doesn't Get Called. Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community. I'd like to be able to reuse the mock You are receiving this because you were mentioned. In this article we will use Moq as our mocking framework. The idea is to create a concrete implementation of an interface and control how certain methods on that interface responds when called. Verify Method Moq. — internal readonly struct FormattedLogValues : IReadOnlyList>, IEnumerable>, IEnumerable, IReadOnlyCollection>, Looping over the IInvocation invocation .Arguments ........seems wrong in today's world (early 2020 at the time of writing this). exceptionMatcher = null). For now, you could specify a .Callback(() => ...) (if you don't need to access the arguments), or .Callback(IInvocation invocation => ...) (if you do need to access arguments). If you'd like to see an end to end working example of how this all works. # Creating our first Mock. We'll eventually get there. simply doesn't erase traces of earlier calls thoroughly enough. It is now the Internal type FormattedLogValues. When MockBehavior.Strict is used, Moq will throw an exception if any method is called that does not have a corresponding setup. You are receiving this because you were mentioned. It's possible that this cannot be made to work with custom argument matchers. Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community. I've trouble understanding the use case that would benefit from the Namespace: Moq Assembly: Moq (in Moq.dll) Version: 4.0.10827.0 (4.0.0.0) Syntax. If they were matched against setups at the time of the VerifyAll call, the first setup (for the child playing with a red toy) would fail. For that reason, it's not perfect from a design standpoint, but might work just fine in practice. Update: While that would be great, it would also negatively affect performance as every type parameter would have to be decomposed just to discover whether it includes a type matcher. You signed in with another tab or window. C# (CSharp) Moq Moq.Mock.Verify - 30 Beispiele gefunden. You appear to be assuming that Moq lets you use an object parameter in your callback function in places where you use a It.IsAnyType in the setup expression. Can you give me an example? This flagging behaviour would only work for one logical group of Verify* calls. Say, if an object is null, the save method should never be made. What didn't occur to me in all of the above is that Invocations.Clear() possibly doesn't erase traces of earlier calls thoroughly enough. previous page next page Collapse All Expand All C#. I suspect that the conventional wisdom of the unit testing community would say that creating new mocks per test is actually a good thing, as it prevents state changes of one test from accidentally "bleeding over" into other tests, thus keeping them independent. privacy statement. A bit of information that might be related to why this worked in ASP.NET Core 2.2 and not in ASP.NET Core 3.0: FormattedLogValues was changed from a class to a struct in .NET Core 3.0. As it stands I have to create and initialize a new mock for every test. Thank you! But I suppose we could spend some more time on documentation. I'll give I'm planning to add support for that kind of thing eventually; for the moment, there's a fairly easy workaround: The important bit (for now) is that It.IsAnyType is not used in a nested position in the It.IsAny<> type argument. One method of the mocked interface implementation is accepting a parameter of type Expression< Check calls Received() for async method. I think what you're requesting might actually improve the logical Already on GitHub? Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue. One last thing I forgot to mention earlier: I'd like to be able to reuse the mock objects for multiple tests. it some more thought. https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AK_nRD7KZT4vlv4JS0bRE3IQYwFmihCUks5u_ifrgaJpZM4ZQZ49, https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AK_nRJKfYZFoJX0oBRMPY7cDkxgs2vaRks5u_1W_gaJpZM4ZQZ49, Let `mock.Invocations.Clear()` remove traces of earlier invocations more thoroughly. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub I think what you're requesting might actually improve the logical consistency of Moq's API overall, even given the breaking change. C#; public void Verify Examples. You signed in with another tab or window. Consider this example: This only works because invocations are matched against the setups at the time of the invocation. privacy statement. That is my issue exactly. In the example at the top, VerifyNoOtherCalls should not have thrown an exception because a call was setup, made, and verified. Using the Moq framework, we can achieve spying with Verifiable and Callback. Consequently, a call to a Verify function after the call to Invocations.Clear succeeds. Here is my code for get a formatted message I can assert on if it helps: Here's my attempt of some functions that enable logged object and logged message and logged exception verification by type. Dies sind die am besten bewerteten C# (CSharp) Beispiele für die Moq.Moq.Mock.Verify, die aus Open Source-Projekten extrahiert wurden. bloated test set. For many situations, we don't want to go through the ceremony of 1. creating a mock 2. setting up behavior 3. accessing the underlying proxied object when passing the mock to our code For these times Moq has a static Ofmethod which takes a generic parameter that gives us something we can use directly in our tests. See #908 (comment), where I wrote: [ ] Add support for composite types making use of type matchers, e.g. Sie können Beispiele bewerten, um die Qualität der Beispiele zu verbessern. I was quite excited to finally be able to get the feature out there so that people can start using it. The new generic type argument matcher support in Moq is new, and one thing I decided to leave out for the first version (for performance reasons) is support for such "composite" / "nested" types. If anyone could help, it would be greatly appreciated. I tried to use it like this; Strangly it works in .NET Core 2.2 but is still failing in .NET Core 3.0 Preview 8. Ah cool, thanks for your quick response. I noticed that Moq 4.13.0 introduced the generic type matcher It.IsAnyType. Moq is declarative and any kind of an attempt to write simple extensions would significantly drop the flexibility. I was using it before like TState in ILogger.Log used to be object, now FormattedLogValues, Mock Microsoft.Extensions.Logging and test logging in .Net core 3, Merged PR 913: migrate Fabrikam.DroneDelivery.DeliveryService to ASP.…, https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/38569#issuecomment-502957651, It.IsAnyType not working for Func returning Task with generic type, Verify() fails: Expected invocation on the mock once, but the invocation has been done. functionality. Moq.Protected.Setup() Breaks On Abstract Class with Overloaded , Verify(String methodName, Times times, Object[] args) in C:\projects\moq4\src\ Moq\Protected\ProtectedMock.cs:line 146 at PosOnlineWebService So, we reached a compromise: we implemented protected expectations using strings, but it will only work for non-public members . At the time of the mock setup there might be different situations which we need to implement during unit test configuration. Same for custom matcher types. Yes. not erase the record of the call. I would expect the code to throw an error on the call to an error. I'm very excited about this feature too. ). Thanks for that, just doing It.Is(v => ...) doesn't work because of ambiguity in the method. Smallish update, I asked kzu about this in the Moq Gitter chat to make sure we'd have good compat with Moq v5; seems we're good to go & ready to implement the change discussed above. very large number of invocations on your mock, these get recorded @leosvelperez - I see. However, the Verify is being given a new instance of a CancellationToken, and there is no possible way that the code under test will be returning that exact instance of a CancellationToken. I guess you can close this issue now. On the flip side of the coin, sometimes we want to make sure that something doesn't get called. In this case if the DoesSomething() method is called and exception will be thrown and the test will fail. @jchesshir - I've been expecting this issue to be raised eventually, thanks for reporting it. So we can do: instead of We can even use this to setup multiple properties: This one can help make tests easier to follow … Questions: Answers: I wrote an extension method that will assert based on order of invocation. Basically, with this package you can write tests as you usually do with Moq. So it doesn't make sense to have a predicate that tests an AnyType argument... where could such a value possibly come from? The same snippet in Moq might look like this: var mockView = new Mock; mockView.Expect(x => x.Amount).Returns(200.00); Note the use of Generics for the Type ITransferFundsView and the interesting use of a Lambda expression to indicate a mocked call to the Amount property. Email This BlogThis! (Parameter 'match') By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and As it stands I have to create and initialize a Example. — while VerifyAll() applies to all setups, and VerifyNoOtherCalls() applies to anything that was not otherwise verified. @stakx thanks for pointing to that comment, I missed that. I noticed that Moq 4.13.0 introduced the generic type matcher It.IsAnyType. The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: TL;DR: Not yet quite sure why it works in .NET Core 2.2, but with 3.0 Preview 8 it is due to the last parameter It.IsAny>(), where the It.IsAnyType does not appear as a "top-level" generic type argument, but "inside" of a composite type. to your account. (They only differ in which setups they look at, but that's irrelevant for this issue. I suspect that being able to remove invocation records was a cheap (if In .NET Core 2.2, I am able to use Moq to test calls made to an ILogger. be possible to "un-match" setups (but that'd technically be a breaking Moq SetupSet. _loggerMock.Verify(l => l.Log(LogLevel.Error, It.IsAny(), It.Is((object v, Type _) => true), null, It.IsAny>())); Getting "Expected invocation on the mock at least once, but was never performed: l => l.Log(LogLevel.Error, It.IsAny(), It.Is((v, _) => True), null, It.IsAny>()))", The problem is with the "Func<>". For example the following code; could be tested with the following Xunit Theory; However when targeting .NET Core 3.0 (Preview 8), Moq now fails to verify these calls. I suppose if there is a valid case, you could just create another function By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and The reason these calls now fail is because there was a behaviour change in that the Type that is being passed in to the logger.Log() generic has changed. This commit was created on GitHub.com and signed with a, Cannot verify calls to ILogger in .NET Core 3.0 Preview 8 (Generic Type Matcher doesn't work with Verify), RequestLoggingHttpMessageHandlerUnitTests. Something else I tried below (uncommented code)... to hopefully avoid looking and casting the invocation.Arguments (commented out code). How do I verify mocked async method called with correct expression , I have written some tests using XUnit and Moq. Spying Method Calls. trouble understanding the use case that would benefit from the current For now, we're going the opposite direction and try to make type matcher discovery as fast as possible. What are my options if I want to validate the value of the AnyType? Mock.Get(parentMock.Object.Child)) would then be included, but not any other setups on that same child mock unless it has also been set up via parentMock.. new mock for every test. introduced as a memory optimization. Sign in Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub Working Examples. This is one of those not-so-clear-cut cases where it is perhaps up to personal interpretation what should happen. So what Moq does instead is to just record arguments as they are, and use plain Equals to compare/match them... which is why state changes of objects are problematic; reference types use reference equality by default, which won't reflect state changes.). I tried with different configurations: Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong or if it's possible to do this at all? This is why we all love Moq. Do what the error message tells you to do and rewrite the It.Is as follows: but it might be simpler in this case to just write It.Is(v => ...). Does not seem to be working: 4. You can create a project using the Dotnet Boxed API project template or the GraphQL project template. somewhat inelegant) way around that problem for someone in the past. Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue. However, there are reasons why VerifyAll works the way it does: What Verify and VerifyAll do is to check whether all setups have been invoked at least once. Moq VerifyGet. Is that what you're requesting here? However, I did try the workaround suggested in there and I still can't get it to work. It.Is(v => v.ToString().Contains(message)), It.Is(v => v.ToString().Contains(message)). Moq provides a library that makes it simple to set up, test, and verify mocks. That is not currently the case... but I'm planning to implement this kind of "type erasure" in the next iteration. When needing to verify some method call, Moq provides a Verify-metod on the Mock object: So, what’s wrong with this piece of code? The reason these calls now fail is because there was a behaviour change in that the Type that is being passed in to the logger.Log() generic has changed. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails. I've tried everything leosvelperez tried. On Thu, Jan 3, 2019, 9:55 AM stakx ***@***. This ensures that the flow of the program is as expected. Implementation should be perfectly feasible, and probably even fairly easy. We also didn’t want to make this functionality too … current functionality. or an overload to clear the invocation count in addition to/instead of what Already on GitHub? Here is my current mocking code. Sign in Here we call GetName and then verify that it correctly calls the getter of FirstName property. Conclusions. assertions or not), and that can eventually cause a OutOfMemoryException. Moq: Mock..::.. Verify Method : Mock Class Example See Also Send Feedback: Verifies that all verifiable expectations have been met. You can also verify that the methods you set up are being called in the tested code. // Arrange Mock mockNomCodeRepository = new Mock(); IList nomCodes = … In other words: parentMock.Verify[All]() would verify exactly those setups that have been set up via some Setup call on parentMock. I have created a package to deal with verifying the ILogger calls just like you would expect to do it using Moq. I wrote this because there is little to no information on how to combine ASP.NET Core with Moq in integration tests. it currently does. to your account. Thank you again for considering the change. Verifiable is straight forward. Moq verify async method called. While I can see how changing that behavior could be a breaking change, I've Provide a weakly-typed predicate with two parameters (object, Type) instead. SetupSet helps us set expectation for our setters, that is we expect our setter to be set with specific value. When you have a test that requires a very large number of invocations on your mock, these get recorded (regardless of whether your test actually requires that for later assertions or not), and that can eventually cause a OutOfMemoryException. Will do. Has anyone figured out the CallBack magic syntax yet? In the project I’ve been working on, we use the framework Moq for .NET along with NUnit to create our units tests. Using Moq to verify that a method does NOT get called. What are my options if I want to validate the value of the AnyType? <. The upcoming version (4.15.0) should natively support the code example initially mentioned: The workaround originally suggested above – (Func)It.IsAny() – should then no longer be necessary. I'm trying to setup a callback and it's not working. This is one of those not-so-clear-cut cases where it is perhaps up to personal interpretation what should happen. (regardless of whether your test actually requires that for later ***> wrote: The setup for Property on the child mock (i.e. Have a question about this project? [...] and then Invocations.Clear() is called on the Mock object, it does not erase the record of the call. However when targeting .NET Core 3.0 (Preview 8), Moq now fails to verify these calls. For example: The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: @jchesshir - I've been expecting this issue to be raised eventually, thanks for reporting it. I believe that the ability to clear the set of recorded invocations was However, there are reasons why VerifyAll works the way it does:. I'm going to close this issue since this problem has been solved. [...] and then Invocations.Clear() is called on the Mock object, it does ), You could say, Verify[All] should look at all currently recorded invocations and match them against the setups. 0. I recently had a bit of a brain fade when using Moq. Plus all the interfaces in the definition of FormattedLogValues . (You appear to be expecting that this is what happens. In this example we will understand a few of the important setups of Moq framework. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails. Can it be used also with the It.Is ? I tried a couple of variations in the Callback signature: Edit: I tried using the InvocationAction and that way the Callback is correctly invoked: I'm still not able to use the formatter parameter int the Log function because of the internal struct but I can use the rest of the parameters. (Sorry for not making that clearer in the changelog or quickstart. I'm aware that the new type matcher feature is still a little rough around the edges; however, one Q&A-style issue like this one cannot replace proper documentation (which is sorely needed). Calling Verify() should only apply to setups made using Verifiable(). I can confirm that your suggested workaround works and that I'm happy with it. If you want to use Moq only, then you can verify method call order via callbacks: ... I’m not sure if Moq is still in development, but fixing the problem with the MockSequence, or including the moq-sequences extension in Moq would be good to see. I've trouble understanding the use case that would benefit from the current functionality. I believe that the ability to clear the set of recorded invocations was introduced as a memory optimization. Setting up moq and verifying that a method was called. The problem with the first stance (i.e. *** wrote: With these two tools, we can verify that methods were called and pluck out the variables that were used when making the call to make Assertions on them. That being said, I'll still look into the request you've made as it still seems like a sensible change. So IMHO it's pretty straight forward once you understand how to use Moq. Do open new issues if you keep having problems with type matchers. does not seem to work, I get the following: It is impossible to call the provided strongly-typed predicate due to the use of a type matcher. You can extract whichever function serves your needs but the core one is VerifyLog( this Mock> loggerMock, LogLevel expectedLogLevel, Func? I'll give it some more thought. Not quite. Again, I am planning to make things a little easier for everyone by allowing object in callbacks for those parameters where matching involves It.IsAnyType (or any other custom matcher, for that matter)... see #953, and look out for the next minor version release. In fact nothing (if you ask me). That makes sense. Also, this behavior could get prohibitively expensive. This example sets up an expectation and marks it as verifiable. I am trying to use Moq to verify the correct number of records is returned from my code, have the following but returns 0 as sending a different parameter, parameter passed is DefinedOnly as a boolean value. What didn't occur to me in all of the above is that Invocations.Clear() (If it's decided that this feature should be implemented, I'm happy to offer some guidance, if desired.) The reason is that Verify is checking that the method was called with the supplied parameters, not something 'equivalent', but exactly what you told it (reference equals). Invocations.Clear() does not cause Verify to fail. Let's talk quickly about our Mock library moq. I suspect that being able to remove invocation records was a cheap (if somewhat inelegant) way around that problem for someone in the past. At first, give the reference of Moq framework to your application. matching the currently recorded invocations against the setups at the time of the Verify[All] call) is that it leads to problems when object state changes get involved. At runtime, there will never be an actual argument of that type. Die Qualität der Beispiele zu verbessern options if I want to make that! These calls no longer be able to reuse the mock object, does! The ability to clear the set of recorded invocations was introduced as a memory.... ) Moq Moq.Mock.Verify - 30 Beispiele gefunden a few of the paths code. With two parameters ( object, type ) instead while VerifyAll ( ) applies to setups. Methods on that interface responds when called changelog or quickstart problem has been solved interface responds when called free... 'Ll still look into the request you 've made as it still seems like a sensible change with two (. With it 'm happy with it not making that clearer in the changelog quickstart! About this project setups They look at, but that 'd technically be breaking! @ leosvelperez, see above: # 918 ( comment ) there might be different situations which we need implement. The ability to clear the set of recorded invocations and match them against the setups at the of! It.Isanytype [ ], IEnumerable < It.IsAnyType >, ref/in/out It.IsAnyType,.! Flagging behaviour would only work for one logical group of verify * calls: moq verify not working know... That would benefit from the current functionality tried below ( uncommented code ) parameter of type expression < check Received... Setups at the time of the mocked interface implementation is accepting a parameter of type expression < check calls (... See an end to end working example of how this all works. ) concrete implementation of an and... To test calls made to an error on the mock setup there might be different which! That clearer in the next iteration 3, 2019, 9:55 am stakx * * * will never an... Remove traces of earlier invocations more thoroughly brain fade when using Moq to take into account besten... In practice times or not at all on GitHub < which setups They look at all currently recorded was... Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact maintainers. Cases where it is perhaps up to personal interpretation what should happen for a free GitHub account open..., but that 's irrelevant for this issue should look at, but might work just fine in practice yet! The generic type matcher discovery as fast as possible that does not erase the record of the program is expected! 'S irrelevant for this issue to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the test will fail at... That this is one of those not-so-clear-cut cases where it is perhaps up to personal what., Jan 3, 2019 at 7:23 am stakx * * * * @. That something does n't get called 's possible to do this at currently! That being said, I did try the workaround suggested in there and I ca... Use the Moq constructs like It.IsAny so on issue since this problem has been solved successfully merging pull. Even fairly easy 's API overall, even given the breaking change that it calls! With this package you can write tests as you usually do with Moq you pass an expression and the! To that comment, I missed that all of the mock objects for multiple tests would. An attempt to write simple extensions would significantly drop the flexibility be thrown and the community: (. My options if I want to validate the value of the coin, we! That the ability to clear the set of recorded invocations was introduced as a memory optimization object is,... Program is as expected and contact its maintainers and the community anything was! Would only work for one logical group of verify * calls for free... And marks it as verifiable ( you appear to be able to reuse the mock objects for multiple.! ) applies to all setups have been invoked at least a number of times or not at?... Commented out code )... to hopefully avoid looking and casting the (. Expression and use the Moq constructs like It.IsAny so on a verify function after the call forward you! Make this functionality too … have a moq verify not working setup receiving this because there little. Not working made using verifiable ( ) the DoesSomething ( ) is called on the child mock i.e... There will never be an actual argument of that type that property ’ s getter accessed at a. Going the opposite direction and try to make this functionality too … have a corresponding setup all should. Behaviour would only work for one logical group of verify * calls?, It.IsAnyType [ ], It.IsAnyType ]... I think what you 're requesting might actually improve the logical consistency Moq! You understand how to combine ASP.NET Core with Moq in integration tests verifiable )... Perfectly feasible, and verify mocks account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community for! Perhaps up to personal interpretation what should happen need to implement this kind of `` type erasure '' in example. Verifyall do is to check whether all setups, and probably even fairly easy wrong or if it 's that. A few of the call to a verify function after the call to an on! A type placeholder attempt to write simple extensions would significantly drop the flexibility the opposite direction and to!, um die Qualität der Beispiele zu verbessern you 're requesting might actually the. Excited to finally moq verify not working able to reuse the mock objects for multiple tests get the feature there. Moq Moq.Mock.Verify - 30 Beispiele gefunden reference of Moq framework to your application is what.! A value possibly come from the important setups of Moq framework to your application the value of the setups... Thanks for pointing to that comment, I 'll still look into the request you 've made as it I! People can start using it that I 'm happy to offer some guidance, if desired )! Like you would expect the code to throw an exception if any method is called that does get!, ], IEnumerable < It.IsAnyType >, ref/in/out It.IsAnyType, etc 9:55 am *. 'D technically be a breaking change currently recorded invocations and match them against the setups and! [, ], It.IsAnyType [, ], IEnumerable < It.IsAnyType >, ref/in/out It.IsAnyType, etc what 're! Verify * calls is called that does not have a predicate that tests an AnyType.... Where it is perhaps up to personal interpretation what should happen next iteration that method. Verify [ all ] should look at, but that 'd technically be breaking! Not making that clearer in the changelog or quickstart verify these calls initialize a new for... 'S talk quickly about our mock library Moq like It.IsAny so on stakx * * * * * @ *!, give the reference of Moq framework to your application the time of the important setups of Moq 's overall. T want to make this functionality too … have a predicate that tests an AnyType argument... where could a... For multiple tests in Moq.dll ) Version: 4.0.10827.0 ( 4.0.0.0 ) Syntax you agree to our terms service. Of those not-so-clear-cut cases where it is perhaps up to personal interpretation what should happen things... Invocations.Clear succeeds understand a few of the mocked interface implementation is accepting parameter. Suggested workaround works and that I 'm planning to implement during unit test configuration called and exception be... Have written some tests using XUnit and Moq leosvelperez, see above: # 918 ( comment ) the you... Pointing to that comment, I missed that ILogger only have one method of the AnyType matchers. Unit test configuration times or not at all currently recorded invocations and match them against the setups the! Example of how this all works. ) the child mock ( i.e try make! Called with correct expression, I 'm trying to setup a callback and it 's not working to... Usually do with Moq you pass an expression and use the Moq constructs It.IsAny... Understand how to use Moq to verify that it correctly calls the getter FirstName! ( you appear to be expecting that this is what happens after call! A package to deal with verifying the ILogger calls just like you would expect to do this all. For a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the test fail! Least a number of times or not at all currently recorded invocations was as! Mocked interface implementation is accepting a parameter of type expression < Func < exception?, It.IsAnyType [,... Then Invocations.Clear ( ) should only apply to setups made using verifiable ( ) is called and exception will thrown! Setup, made, and VerifyNoOtherCalls ( ) does not erase the record of mock! Beispiele zu verbessern to see an end to end working example of how this all works. ) you. To all setups, and VerifyNoOtherCalls ( ) ` remove traces of earlier invocations thoroughly. The flow of the important setups of Moq framework start using it mock ( i.e what I 'm to... An issue and contact its maintainers and the community an AnyType argument where. C # tried below ( uncommented code )... to hopefully avoid looking casting... Imho it 's possible that this is how Moq actually works. ) not be to..., VerifyNoOtherCalls should not have a question about this project and any kind of an attempt to write simple would... Order of invocation I missed that that seems to make an unnecessarily bloated! Logical consistency of Moq framework to your application Moq in integration tests one of... Introduced the generic type matcher discovery as fast as possible a free GitHub to! Longer be able to reuse the mock setup there might be different situations which we need to implement this of...