mock.Protected().Setup<int>("Foo") fails base implementation of Foo is hidden in the derived class by VladimirKhvostov · Pull Request #1342 · devlooped/moq

VladimirKhvostov · 2023-05-10T02:11:04Z

This PR fixes an issue described in the #1341

Always record calls to += and -= event accessors

... by matching and executing setups before event (un-) subscription is dealt with. This has the added benefit of making the interception pipeline more efficient for almost all invocations.

because by the time we get to `HandleEventSubscription`, any setups would already have executed.

Simplify event subscription and remove a remaining inconsistency

Enable parameterized `Mock.Of<>` in query comprehension `from` clause

Discord has several benefits over gitter and is now the de-facto place for other Microsoft large-scale projects (i.e. https://cs.dotnet.gg/) I'm there now most of the time, so selfishly, I'd like to move this over too :)

When testing an argument's type against a "template type" that may in- volve type matchers, we can no longer do a simple `IsAssignableFrom`; we'd have to create our own type matcher-aware version of it that com- pares each constituent part of both sides' types (visited in lockstep). Implementing our own `IsAssignableFrom` is going to be quite difficult because we also have to account for variance. Looking at both ECMA-335 and .NET Core's source code, that looks rather complex... let's not go there. What we'll do instead is much easier: we still visit both sides' types' constituent parts, and whenever we encounter a type matcher in the template type, we test it against the corresponding (sub-) type from the argument. If it's a match, we substitute the argument type in the template type. If all type matchers match, we end up with a rewritten template type that no longer uses any matchers; we can then use `Is- AssignableFrom` with _that_ template type and the argument type to let the framework deal with variance.

The `Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions.ILogger` scenario is one that many people have shown interest in, so let's cover that one in particular.

Add support for nested type matchers

The SolutionDir property is only available when building from the solution. For packing, it's actually not necessary and we could also easily allow packing from the Moq.csproj project itself. This change, in addition to enabling that, also makes the icon path more flexible since it could be moved down to the src folder (say) without requiring a change to the .csproj.

Since we're generating portable symbols, these are WAY smaller than full PDBs used to be. Their size contribution to the package are negligible and for convenience, it's more common nowadays to just embed the symbols always in the assembly itself. In particular for a library that is not deployed to production apps, this makes perfect sense. So stop generating the (effectively legacy) .snupkg.

# devlooped/oss - Don't fail on background workflows devlooped/oss@f08c3f2 # devlooped/.github

Add `Mock<T>.RaiseAsync`

Add `setup.Verifiable(Times times, [string failMessage])` method

…1322) * Project: Convert 'PackageLicenseUrl' to 'PackageLicenseExpression' * Project: Add 'Copyright' as specified in license

…generic-non-void-method Don't throw away generic type arguments in one `mock.Protected().Verify<T>()` method overload

CLAassistant · 2023-05-10T02:11:10Z

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

…s hidden in the derived class (devlooped#1341)

kzu · 2023-08-04T19:44:43Z

Thanks for the PR! Could you rebase on top of main, since files moved around?

stakx

I haven't reviewed & tested this in detail TBH, but it generally looks good to me.

The changelog should be first updated with the latest few missing releases though, otherwise the changelog entry will end up with an incorrect (already published) version.

Copilot

Pull Request Overview

This PR addresses issue #1341 by improving how ProtectedMock selects hidden virtual methods and adds tests to cover this scenario.

Adjusted GetMethod logic to prefer methods declared in derived classes when multiple matches exist.
Added a new test (SetupResultAllowsHiddenVirtualMethods) to verify setup of hidden protected methods.
Updated changelog to document the fix.

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

File	Description
tests/Moq.Tests/ProtectedMockFixture.cs	Added a test verifying setup of hidden protected methods.
src/Moq/Protected/ProtectedMock.cs	Enhanced method resolution logic for hidden virtual methods.
CHANGELOG.md	Documented the fix in the Unreleased fixed section.

Copilot · 2025-05-26T11:55:43Z

+
+			for (Type type = typeof(T); type != typeof(object); type = type.BaseType)
+			{
+				var method = methods.SingleOrDefault(m => m.DeclaringType == typeof(T));


The loop variable type is never used: the predicate always checks DeclaringType == typeof(T). It should use the loop variable type (m.DeclaringType == type) to correctly select the most derived declaring type.

Suggested change

var method = methods.SingleOrDefault(m => m.DeclaringType == typeof(T));

var method = methods.SingleOrDefault(m => m.DeclaringType == type);

Copilot · 2025-05-26T11:55:43Z

+			methods = methods.Where(m => m.GetParameterTypes().CompareTo(argTypes, exact, considerTypeMatchers: false));
+
+			if (methods.Count() < 2)


Calling Count() on an IEnumerable will enumerate it; since it's used again below, consider materializing methods into a collection (e.g., var list = methods.ToList()) to avoid multiple enumerations.

Suggested change

methods = methods.Where(m => m.GetParameterTypes().CompareTo(argTypes, exact, considerTypeMatchers: false));

if (methods.Count() < 2)

methods = methods.Where(m => m.GetParameterTypes().CompareTo(argTypes, exact, considerTypeMatchers: false)).ToList();

if (methods.Count < 2)

stakx and others added 30 commits October 27, 2020 19:40

Update the changelog

06d3ce3

Merge pull request devlooped#1082 from stakx/event-accessors

5bd5191

Always record calls to += and -= event accessors

Fix remaining event subscription inconsistency

ec385a6

... by matching and executing setups before event (un-) subscription is dealt with. This has the added benefit of making the interception pipeline more efficient for almost all invocations.

Event subscription no longer needs to check setups

ae8a420

because by the time we get to `HandleEventSubscription`, any setups would already have executed.

Update the changelog

77328dc

Merge pull request devlooped#1084 from stakx/event-accessors

3f7dff8

Simplify event subscription and remove a remaining inconsistency

Parameterized Mock.Of<> in query comprehension syntax failure

9843621

Don't rewrite nested quoted expressions

9a6deaa

Fix namespace for LINQ to Mocks tests

45f1d0b

Update the changelog

e49c708

Merge pull request devlooped#1085 from stakx/linq

7b8b7e4

Enable parameterized `Mock.Of<>` in query comprehension `from` clause

Add Discord channel link to improve the experience over Gitter

7226a8b

Discord has several benefits over gitter and is now the de-facto place for other Microsoft large-scale projects (i.e. https://cs.dotnet.gg/) I'm there now most of the time, so selfishly, I'd like to move this over too :)

Add (still failing) tests for nested type matchers

b3387cc

The `Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions.ILogger` scenario is one that many people have shown interest in, so let's cover that one in particular.

Add support for nested type matchers

4c878e7

Should catch incorrect usage of nested type matchers early

cc1b2e5

Ensure nested type matchers implement protocol correctly

1e8fda9

Update the changelog

16cf746

Merge pull request devlooped#1092 from stakx/nested-type-matchers

9fcf8a0

Add support for nested type matchers

Simplify cref in xml doc

e1cf8ba

Update the changelog

0a5ba70

Add a link to sources used for build to description

37fed5a

Update version to 4.15.0

85218ab

Update nuget API key

ee071f6

Mention version 4.15.0/1 messup in changelog

6898fa7

Ensure we won't accidentally try to republish 4.15.1 again

2f34e0c

Updating System.Threading.Tasks.Extensions to 4.5.4

9b31ee9

Documenting change in CHANGELOG

89c116f

kzu and others added 20 commits November 17, 2022 22:56

Update moved artifacts in upstream repos

a4d8354

⬆️ Bump files with dotnet-file sync

423fee7

# devlooped/oss - Don't fail on background workflows devlooped/oss@f08c3f2 # devlooped/.github

Update version to 4.18.3

a760c98

⬆️ Bump files with dotnet-file sync

d535cc4

Update DynamicProxy to version 5.1.1

4aa791d

Update version to 4.18.4

042a2eb

Initial implementation for Mock<T>.RaiseAsync

62f9cea

Add two short tests demonstrating RaiseAsync

871f3bf

Update the changelog

3181780

Merge pull request devlooped#1313 from stakx/raiseasync

1f2827f

Add `Mock<T>.RaiseAsync`

Add setup.Verifiable(Times times, [string failMessage]) method

2c54332

Add some tests for setup.Verifiable(Times times)

b20472b

Update the changelog

4def3a5

Merge pull request devlooped#1319 from stakx/verifiable-times

5b560f8

Add `setup.Verifiable(Times times, [string failMessage])` method

Add ThrowsAsync for non-generic ValueTask (devlooped#1235)

047de59

Use PackageLicenseExpression instead of PackageLicenseUrl (devlooped#…

bc34f8e

…1322) * Project: Convert 'PackageLicenseUrl' to 'PackageLicenseExpression' * Project: Add 'Copyright' as specified in license

Add failing test for one mock.Protected().Verify<T>() method overload

a1eaac6

Don't throw away generic type arguments in impl

caca113

Update the changelog

4240ff4

Merge pull request devlooped#1325 from stakx/bugfix/verify-protected-…

1c4c723

…generic-non-void-method Don't throw away generic type arguments in one `mock.Protected().Verify<T>()` method overload

mock.Protected().Setup<int>("Foo") fails base implementation of Foo i…

de41b2b

…s hidden in the derived class (devlooped#1341)

VladimirKhvostov force-pushed the main branch from 74d2528 to de41b2b Compare May 10, 2023 02:12

stakx reviewed Aug 17, 2023

View reviewed changes

Comment thread CHANGELOG.md

kzu requested a review from Copilot May 26, 2025 11:54

kzu added the stale label May 26, 2025

Copilot AI reviewed May 26, 2025

View reviewed changes

kzu closed this Sep 28, 2026

kzu force-pushed the main branch from f7be9cf to 35dfbd9 Compare September 28, 2026 04:07

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

mock.Protected().Setup<int>("Foo") fails base implementation of Foo is hidden in the derived class - #1342

mock.Protected().Setup<int>("Foo") fails base implementation of Foo is hidden in the derived class#1342
VladimirKhvostov wants to merge 2293 commits into
devlooped:mainfrom
VladimirKhvostov:main

VladimirKhvostov commented May 10, 2023

Uh oh!

CLAassistant commented May 10, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

kzu commented Aug 4, 2023

Uh oh!

stakx left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI May 26, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI May 26, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

20 participants

	var method = methods.SingleOrDefault(m => m.DeclaringType == typeof(T));
	var method = methods.SingleOrDefault(m => m.DeclaringType == type);

		methods = methods.Where(m => m.GetParameterTypes().CompareTo(argTypes, exact, considerTypeMatchers: false));

		if (methods.Count() < 2)

Conversation

VladimirKhvostov commented May 10, 2023

Uh oh!

CLAassistant commented May 10, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kzu commented Aug 4, 2023

Uh oh!

stakx left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull Request Overview

Reviewed Changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI May 26, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI May 26, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

20 participants

CLAassistant commented May 10, 2023 •

edited

Loading