Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

GetConstructorMatchingParameterNames #45

Conversation

pnagoorkar
Copy link
Contributor

@pnagoorkar pnagoorkar commented Jul 10, 2024

Solves #44 by trying to get a constructor that matches the available parameters. If no such constructor found, default to GetMostParametersConstructor

… available parameters. If no such constructor found, default to GetMostParametersConstructor
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 10, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 65.54%. Comparing base (56e93b5) to head (870e97d).

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop      #45      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    64.81%   65.54%   +0.72%     
===========================================
  Files           11       11              
  Lines          378      386       +8     
  Branches       118      119       +1     
===========================================
+ Hits           245      253       +8     
  Misses          70       70              
  Partials        63       63              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

tillig
tillig previously approved these changes Jul 10, 2024
Copy link
Member

@tillig tillig left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The code changes themselves look awesome - no notes!

Is there a way to add a unit test that will validate that this works and/or possibly falls back to the default behavior? That way if someone in the future wants to make a change, we make sure they don't break what you've done here.

@pnagoorkar
Copy link
Contributor Author

pnagoorkar commented Jul 11, 2024

Is there a way to add a unit test that will validate that this works and/or possibly falls back to the default behavior? That way if someone in the future wants to make a change, we make sure they don't break what you've done here.

Unit test added.

@pnagoorkar pnagoorkar requested a review from tillig July 11, 2024 16:18
Copy link
Member

@tillig tillig left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks great - thanks! I'll try to get a release out soon.

@tillig tillig merged commit ecfb304 into autofac:develop Jul 12, 2024
3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants