LoggerMock.Fatal() bug fixes #56
Merged
+83
−1
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…tests to validate
zackverham
requested review from
joshfrench,
jonyoder,
eduardocfalcao and
marcosnav
marcosnav
approved these changes
Feb 1, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Intent
Fixes two bugs with the
Fatalfunction in the mocked logger:Fatalwasn't adding its logging operation to the mock's internal call stack, causingLastCall()assertions to failFatalhas a different method signature than the other formatted logging statements,AllowAnywas failing to register the correct method signature.Automated Tests
I added a new test to validate the change and confirm that the rest of the logging functions use the call stack as expected. The test also implicitly confirms
AllowAnybehavior by allowing all logging operations.Miscellaneous
I added a todo comment in
LoggerMock.AllowAnywhich I think could be worth some discussion - the design could totally be the right approach, but I'm just curious why we use string parameters rather than an enumerated type here.