Why not differentiate the constructor by using string.Empty?
-----Original Message-----
From: BaRuSa <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:34:02
To: Rhino.Mocks<[email protected]>
Subject: [RhinoMocks] Ambiguous match found when passing null to a constructor
Simplified example of a class:
abstract class AbstractExample : IExampleInterface
{
protected AbstractExample(string name) { /* Do Stuff */ }
protected AbstractExample(IExampleInterface deepCopy) { /* Do Stuff
*/ }
// abstract methods
}
Simpiflied test for constructor:
[ExpectedException(typeof(ArgumentNullException))]
void Test()
{
AbstractExample example;
string name;
name = null;
example = MockRepository.GenerateStrictMock<AbstractExample>(name);
}
The test creates an exception
"System.Reflection.AmbiguousMatchException: Ambiguous match found." I
am assuming the problem is there are two constructors that could
accept null, but Rhino Mocks doesn't know which type to use. I know
there are constraints that be placed on methods; are there constraints
for calling constructors? Is there a different solution I am not
thinking about?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Rhino.Mocks" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rhinomocks?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Rhino.Mocks" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rhinomocks?hl=en.
