I have an extension method with the following signature:
public static Expression<Func<T, bool>> And<T>(this Expression<Func<T, bool>> first, Expression<Func<T, bool>> second)
{
...
}
I have written a test-case for it that makes sure the two expressions are in fact combined. At least so that the new expression I get works.
Now I would like to write another test-case that just makes sure that the method uses the short-circuiting version of and
. Any clue how I can do this?
I thought I could just do something like this:
[Test]
public void And_PredicatesAreShortCircuited()
{
var predicateNotUsed = true;
Expression<Func<int, b开发者_JAVA百科ool>> a = x => false;
Expression<Func<int, bool>> b = x =>
{
predicateNotUsed = false;
return true;
};
var foo = new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 }
.Where(a.And(b).Compile())
.ToArray();
Assert.That(predicateNotUsed);
}
But I get a giant red squiggly under that whole statement body for b
stating that "A lambda expression with a statement body cannot be converted to an expression tree". So... any options? Or is this an impossible test to write?
Simple suggestion: use a reference type instead of a value type, and dereference it in the path you don't want followed. Pass in null, and see whether it throws an exception :)
[Test]
public void And_PredicatesAreShortCircuited()
{
Expression<Func<string, bool>> a = x => false;
Expression<Func<string, bool>> b = x => x.Length > 10;
var foo = new[] { null, null }
.Where(a.And(b).Compile())
.ToArray();
}
Another alternative would be to use some side-effecting function on the input data (e.g. pass in something that can be changed by the expression tree) but I think the above will probably be the simplest approach :)
Or another idea:
public T NonVoidFail(T x)
{
Assert.Fail("I shouldn't be called");
return x; // Will never happen
}
Then:
[Test]
public void And_PredicatesAreShortCircuited()
{
Expression<Func<int, bool>> a = x => false;
Expression<Func<int, bool>> b = x => NonVoidFail(x);
var foo = new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 }
.Where(a.And(b).Compile())
.ToArray();
}
It's the same principle, but it'll give you a nicer exception :)
精彩评论