We Keep Coding

How can I test if a private method of a class is called or not with rhino mock?

I am quite new at C# and also rhino mocks. I searched and found similar topics with my question but couldnt find a proper solution.
I am trying to understand if the private method is called or not in my unit test. I am using rhino mock, read many files about it, some of them just say that change the access specifier of the method from private to public, but I can not change the source code. I tried to link source file to my test project but it doesnt change.
public void calculateItems()
{
var result = new Result(fileName, ip, localPath, remotePath);
calculateItems(result, nameOfString);
}
private void calculateItems(Result result, string nameOfString )
As you see from the code above, I have two methods have exactly same name, calculateItems, but public one has no parameter, private one has two parameters. I am trying to understand when I called public one in my unittest, is private method called?
private CalculateClass sut;
private Result result;
[SetUp]
public void Setup()
{
result = MockRepository.GenerateStub<Result>();
sut = new CalculateClass();
}
[TearDown]
public void TearDown()
{
}
[Test]
public void test()
{
sut.Stub(stub => stub.calculateItems(Arg<Result>.Is.Anything, Arg<string>.Is.Anything));
sut.calculateItems();
sut.AssertWasCalled(stub => stub.calculateItems(Arg<Result>.Is.Anything, Arg<string>.Is.Anything));
}
In my unittest, I am taking such an error which says "No overload method for calculateItems take two arguments". Is there a way to test it without any changing in source code?

You're testing the wrong thing. Private methods are private. They are of no concern to consuming code, and unit tests are consuming code like any other.
In your tests you test and validate the outward facing functionality of the component. Its inner implementation details aren't relevant to the tests. All the tests care about is whether the invoked operation produces the expected results.
So the question you must ask yourself is... What are the expected results when invoking this operation?:
calculateItems()
It doesn't return anything, so what does it do? What state does it modify in some way? That is what your test needs to observe, not the implementation details but the observable result. (And if the operation has no observable result, then there's no difference between "passed" or "failed" so there's nothing to test.)
We can't see the details of your code, but it's possible that the observable result is coupled to another component entirely. If that's the case then that other component is a dependency for this operation and the goal of the unit test is to mock that dependency so the operation can be tested independently of the dependency. The component may then need to be modified so that a dependency is provided rather than internally controlled. (This is referred to as the Dependency Inversion Principle.)
Also of note...
but I can not change the source code
That's a separate problem entirely. If you truly can't change the source code, then the value of these tests is drastically reduced and possibly eliminated entirely. If a test fails, what can you do about it? Nothing. Because you can't change the code. So what are you testing?
Keep in mind that it's not only possible but unfortunately very common for programmers to write code which can't be meaningfully unit tested. If this code was provided to you by someone else and you are forbidden to change it for some non-technical reason, then it will be the responsibility of that someone else to correct the code. "Correcting" may include "making it possible to meaningfully unit test". (Or, honestly, they should be unit testing it. Not you.)

If your public method calls your private one then the same thing will happen in your tests. Tests are nothing more than code that can be run and debugged and you can try that so see what happens.
Private methods can't be tested directly but they can be tested via their public callers which is what you are doing, so it's all good. Whether it's a good idea to have a setup like this well, that's a different story entirely but I am not going into that now.
Now, let's discuss what you are actually testing.
Unit tests should not have deep knowledge of the code they test. The reason is that you should have inputs and outputs and you shouldn't care what happens in between.
If you refactor the code and eliminate the private method then your test would break, even if your inputs and outputs to your public method remain the same. That's not a good position to be in, this is what we call brittle tests.
So add your functional tests around the public method, verify that you get hat you expect and don't worry whether it calls your private method or not.

When you say you need to know whether your private methods are called, this can have two different interpretations:
You want to ensure that the private method is called within one particular test, making it a success criterion for that very test.
You want to know if the private method is called at all, by any of your test cases. You might be interested in this because you want to be sure if the private method is covered by your test suite, or as you said, just to form an understanding of what is actually going on in your code.
Regarding the second interpretation: If you want to understand what is going on in the code, a good approach is to use a debugger and just step through the code to see what function is called. As I am not a C# expert here, I can not recommend any specific debugging tool, but finding some recommendations about this on the web should not be difficult. This approach would fulfill your requirements not to require changes to the source code
Another possibility, in particular if you are interested in whether your private function is covered by the tests, is to use a test coverage tool for C#. The coverage tool would show you whether or not the private method was called or not. Again, this would not require to make any changes to the source code.
Regarding the first interpretation of your question: If you want to test that some privat function is called as part of your test's success criterion, you preferrably do this with tests that use the public API. Then, in these tests, you should be able to judge if the private function is called because of the effect that the private function has on the test result.
And, in contrast to other opinions, you should test the implementation. The primary goal of unit-testing is to find the bugs in the code. Different implementations have different bugs. This is why people also use coverage tools, to see if they have covered the code of their implementation. And, coverage is not enough, you also need to check boundary cases of expressions etc. Certainly, having maintainable tests and tests that do not break unnecessarily in case of refactorings are good goals (why testing through the public API is typically a good approach - but not always), but they are secondary goals compared to the goal to find all bugs.

Do we lie to ourselves when creating a mock for a unit test

I have just started learning all about unit testing since yesterday and today was reading about Mocks and NSub in particular.
The problem I have is that I don't get the philosophy and way of thinking behind it. So for example reading my book came to this:
[Test]
public void Returns_ByDefault_WorksForHardCodedArgument()
{
IFileNameRules fakeRules = Substitute.For<IFileNameRules>();
fakeRules.IsValidLogFileName(Arg.Any<String>())
.Returns(true);
Assert.IsTrue(fakeRules.IsValidLogFileName("anything.txt"));
}
OK so first we make a fake object to represent the interface of the actual class that we have a actual method in it that does some actual work. Then we call that method but we also tell it to return true.
Then we assert it to see if it is returning true ? Well we just told it one line before that return true! now we test it is returning true! they we say ok good passed?
I don't get it! To me feel like this: Teacher tell the kid in order to pass the exam answer yes to this question if asked, then goes and asks that question and kid says yes and exam is passed?

As per the comments on this question, this test is likely demonstrating how the mocking library works. For our test code we are extremely unlikely (partial mocks being a potential exception) to mock out the class we want to test. Instead we may want to mock out some things the code uses, in order to get more deterministic tests, or faster tests, or tests that simulate rare events, etc.
To your direct question, yes I guess we are sort lying to ourselves when we mock out dependencies for a test. We are saying "let's pretend that our dependency does X, then check our code does Y". Now it is possible the dependency never actually does "X". To me, the aim of mocking is to start off with this fiction, then test our dependency and make sure it actually does do "X", to the point where the fiction ends up matching reality.

The purpose of testing is to check every single way a method could possibly behave. If you tell the method a true statement and it returns false. Obviously something is wrong with the method you wrote. Sometimes the most complex issues can be solved by finding simple mistakes in your code. (In this case checking to see if the method will actually return true when asked to return true.) IF it fails to do so. You done messed up.

understanding some unit testing practices

I am a newbie to unit testing - I have only done basic assert tests using mere Testmethods(my last module, I created about 50 of those).
I am currently reading a book on Unit Testing, and one of the many examples in the book has me creating a new class for each single test. Below is one of the example objects created just for one test case. My question is is it ever necessary to do this? Or when should one apply this approach and when is it not necessary?
public class and_saving_an_invalid_item_type : when_working_with_the_item_type_repository
{
private Exception _result;
protected override void Establish_context()
{
base.Establish_context();
_session.Setup(s => s.Save(null)).Throws(new ArgumentNullException());
}
protected override void Because_of()
{
try
{
_itemTypeRepository.Save(null);
}
catch (Exception exception)
{
_result = exception;
}
}
[Test]
public void then_an_argument_null_exception_should_be_raised()
{
_result.ShouldBeInstanceOfType(typeof(ArgumentNullException));
}
}

Do you need to create a new class for each individual test? I would say no, you certainly do not. I don't know why the book is saying that, or if they are just doing it to help illustrate their examples.
To answer your question, I'd recommend using a class for each group of tests... but it's really a bit more complex than that, because how you define "group" is varying and dependant on what you're doing at the time.
In my experience, a set of tests is really logically structured like a document, which can contain one or more set of tests, grouped (and sometimes nested) together by some common aspect. A natural grouping for testing Object-Oriented code is to group by class, and then by method.
Here's an example
tests for class 1
tests for method 1
primary behaviour of method 1
alternate behaviour of method 1
tests for method 2
primary behaviour of method 2
alternate behaviour of method 2
Unfortunately, in C# or java (or similar languages), you've only got two levels of structure to work with (as opposed to the 3 or 4 you really actually want), and so you have to hack things to fit.
The common way this is done is to use a class to group together sets of tests, and don't group anything at the method level, as like this:
class TestsForClass1 {
void Test_method1_primary()
void Test_method1_alternate()
void Test_method2_primary()
void Test_method2_alternate()
}
If both your method 1 and method 2 all have identical setup/teardown, then this is fine, but sometimes they don't, leading to this breakdown:
class TestsForClass1_method1 {
void Test_primary()
void Test_alternate()
}
class TestsForClass1_method2 {
void Test_primary()
void Test_alternate()
}
If you have more complex requirements (let's say you have 10 tests for method_1, the first 5 have setup requirement X, the next 5 have different setup requirements), then people usually end up just making more and more class names like this:
class TestsForClass1_method1_withRequirementX { ... }
class TestsForClass1_method1_withRequirementY { ... }
This sucks, but hey - square peg, round hole, etc.
Personally, I'm a fan of using lambda-functions inside methods to give you a third level of grouping. NSpec shows one way that this can be done... we have an in-house test framework which is slightly different, it reads a bit like this:
class TestsForClass1 {
void TestsForMethod1() {
It.Should("perform it's primary function", () => {
// ....
});
It.Should("perform it's alternate function", () => {
// ....
});
}
}
This has some downsides (if the first It statement fails, the others don't run), but I consider this tradeoff worth it.)
-- The question originally read: "is it ever really necessary to create an object for each single test I want to carry out?". The answer to that is (mostly) yes, as per this explanation.
Generally, unit tests involve the interaction of two parts
The object under test. Usually this is an instance of a class or a function you've written
The environment. Usually this is whatever parameters you've passed to your function, and whatever other dependencies the object may have a reference to.
In order for unit tests to be reliable, both of these parts need to be "fresh" for each test, to ensure that the state of the system is sane and reliable.
If the thing under test is not refreshed for each test, then one function may alter the object's internal state, and cause the next test to wrongly fail
If the environment is not refreshed for each test, then one function may alter the environment (eg: set some variable in an external database or something), which may cause the next test to wrongly fail.
There are obviously many situations where this is not the case - You might for example have a pure mathematical function that only takes integers as parameters and doesn't touch any external state, and then you may not want to bother re-creating the object under test or the test environment... but generally, most things in any Object-Oriented system will need refreshing, so this is why it is "standard practice" to do so.

I'm not quite able to follow your example, but ideally any test case should be able to run independently of any other - independently from anything else, really.

How to keep my unit tests DRY when mocking doesn't work?

Edit:
It seems that by trying to provide some solutions to my own problem I blurred the whole problem. So I'm modifying the question little bit.
Suppose I have this class:
public class ProtocolMessage : IMessage
{
public IHeader GetProtocolHeader(string name)
{
// Do some logic here including returning null
// and throw exception in some cases
return header;
}
public string GetProtocolHeaderValue(string name)
{
IHeader header = GetProtocolHeader(name);
// Do some logic here including returning null
// and throw exception in some cases
return value;
}
}
It is actually not important what's going on in these methods. The important is that I have multiple unit tests to cover GetProtocolHeader method covering all situations (returning correct header, null or exception) and now I'm writing unit tests for GetProtocolHeaderValue.
If GetProtocolHeaderValue would be dependent on external dependency I would be able to mock it and inject it (I'm using Moq + NUnit). Then my unit test would just test expectation that external dependency was called and returned expected value. The external dependency would be tested by its own unit test and I would be done but how to correctly proceed in this example where method is not external dependency?
Clarification of the problem:
I believe my test suite for GetProtocolHeaderValue must test situation where GetProtocolHeader returns header, null or exception. So the main question is: Should I write tests where GetProtocolHeader will be really executed (some tests will be duplicated because they will test same code as tests for GetProtocolHeader itself) or should I use mocking approach described by #adrift and #Eric Nicholson where I will not run real GetProtoclHeader but just configure mock to return header, null or exception when this method is called?

In the call to GetProtocolHeaderValue, do you actually need to know whether or not it called GetProtocolHeader?
Surely it is enough to know that it is getting the correct value from the correct header. How it actually got it is irrelevant to the unit test.
You are testing units of functionality, the unit of functionality of GetProtocolHeaderValue is whether it returns the expected value, given a header name.
It is true that you may wish to guard against inappropriate caching or cross-contamination or fetching the value from a different header, but I don't think that testing that it has called GetProtocolHeader is the best way to do this. You can infer that it somehow fetched the right header from the fact that it returned the expected value for the header.
As long as you craft your tests and test data in such a way as to ensure that duplicate headers don't mask errors, then all should be well.
EDIT for updated question:
If GetProtocolHeader works quickly, reliably and is idempotent, then I still believe that there is no need to mock it. A shortfall in any of those three aspects is (IMO) the principal reason for mocking.
If (as I suspect from the question title), the reason you wish to mock it is that the preamble required to set up an appropriate state to return a real value is too verbose, and you'd rather not repeat it across the two tests, why not do it in the setup phase?
One of the roles performed by good unit tests is documentation.
If someone wishes to know how to use your class, they can examine the tests, and possibly copy and alter the test code to fit their purpose. This becomes difficult if the real idiom of usage has been obscured by the creation and injection of mocks.
Mocks can obscure potential bugs.
Let's say that GetProtocolHeader throws an exception if name is empty. You create a mock accordingly, and ensure that GetProtocolHeaderValue handles that exception appropriately. Later, you decide that GetProtocolHeader should return null for an empty name. If you forget to update your mock, GetProtocolHeaderValue("") will now behave differently in real life vs. the test suite.
Mocking might present an advantage if the mock is less verbose than the setup, but give the above points due consideration first.
Though you give three different GetProtocolHeader responses (header, null or exception) that GetProtocolHeaderValue needs to test, I imagine that the first one is likely to be "a range of headers". (e.g. What does it do with a header that is present, but empty? How does it treat leading and trailing whitespace? What about non-ASCII chars? Numbers?). If the setup for all of these is exceptionally verbose, it might be better to mock.

I often use a partial mock (in Rhino) or the equivalent (like CallsBaseMethod in FakeItEasy) to mock the actual class I'm testing. Then you can make GetProtocolHeader virtual and mock your calls to it. You could argue that it's violating the single responsibility principal, but that's still clearly very cohesive code.
Alternatively you could make a method like
internal static string GetProtocolHeaderValue(string name, IHeader header )
and test that processing independently. The public GetProtocolHeaderValue method wouldn't have any/many tests.
Edit: In this particular case, I'd also consider adding GetValue() as an extension method to IHeader. That would be very easy to read, and you could still do the null checking.

I'm probably missing something, but given the code listed it seems to me that you don't need to worry about whether its called or not.
Two possibilities exist:
That the GetProtocolHeader() method needs to be public in which case you write the set of tests that tell you whether it works as expected or not.
That its an implementation detail and doesn't need to be public except in so far as you want to be able to test it directly but in that case all you really care about is the set of tests that tell you whether GetProtocolHeaderValue() works as required.
In either case you are testing the exposed functionality and at the end of the day that's all that matters. If it were a dependency then yes you might be worrying about whether it was called but if its not the surely its an implemenation detail and not relevant?

With Moq, you can use CallBase to do the equivalent of a partial mock in Rhino Mocks.
In your example, change GetProtocolHeader to virtual, then create a mock of ProtocolMessage, setting CallBase = true. You can then setup the GetProtocolHeader method as you wish, and have your base class functionality of GetProtocolHeaderValue called.
See the Customizing Mock Behavior section of the moq quickstart for more details.

Why not simply change GetProtocolHeaderValue(string name) so that it calls 2 methods, the second one accepting a IHeader? That way, you can test all the // do some logic part in a separate test, via the RetrieveHeaderValue method, without having to worry about Mocks. Something like:
public string GetProtocolHeaderValue(string name)
{
IHeader header = GetProtocolHeader(name);
return RetrieveHeaderValue(IHeader header);
}
now you can test both parts of GetProtocolHeaderValue fairly easily. Now you still have the same problem testing that method, but the amount of logic in it has been reduced to a minimum.
Following the same line of thinking, these methods could be extracted in a IHeaderParser interface, and the GetProtocol methods would take in a IHeaderParser, which would be trivial to test/mock.
public string GetProtocolHeaderValue(string name, IHeaderParser parser)
{
IHeader header = parser.GetProtocolHeader(name);
return parser.HeaderValue(IHeader header);
}

Try the simplest thing that might work.
If the real GetProtocolHeader() implementation is quick and easy to control (e.g. to simulate header, null and exception cases), just use it.
If not (i.e. either the real implementation is time-consuming or you can easily simulate the 3 cases), then look at redesigning such that the constraints are eased.
I refrain from using Mocks unless absolutely required (e.g. file/network/external dependency), but as you may know this is just a personal choice not a rule. Ensure that the choice is worth the extra cognitive overhead (drop in readability) of the test.

It's all a matter of oppinion, pure tdd-ists will say no mocks, mockers will mock it all.
In my honest oppinion there is something wrong with the code you wrote, the GetProtocolHeader seems important enough not to be discarded as an implementation detail, as you defined it public.
The problem here lies within the second method GetProtocolHeaderValue that does not have the possibility to use an existing instance of IHeader
I would suggest a GetValue(string name) on IHeader interface

How to enforce the use of a method's return value in C#?

I have a piece of software written with fluent syntax. The method chain has a definitive "ending", before which nothing useful is actually done in the code (think NBuilder, or Linq-to-SQL's query generation not actually hitting the database until we iterate over our objects with, say, ToList()).
The problem I am having is there is confusion among other developers about proper usage of the code. They are neglecting to call the "ending" method (thus never actually "doing anything")!
I am interested in enforcing the usage of the return value of some of my methods so that we can never "end the chain" without calling that "Finalize()" or "Save()" method that actually does the work.
Consider the following code:
//The "factory" class the user will be dealing with
public class FluentClass
{
//The entry point for this software
public IntermediateClass<T> Init<T>()
{
return new IntermediateClass<T>();
}
}
//The class that actually does the work
public class IntermediateClass<T>
{
private List<T> _values;
//The user cannot call this constructor
internal IntermediateClass<T>()
{
_values = new List<T>();
}
//Once generated, they can call "setup" methods such as this
public IntermediateClass<T> With(T value)
{
var instance = new IntermediateClass<T>() { _values = _values };
instance._values.Add(value);
return instance;
}
//Picture "lazy loading" - you have to call this method to
//actually do anything worthwhile
public void Save()
{
var itemCount = _values.Count();
. . . //save to database, write a log, do some real work
}
}
As you can see, proper usage of this code would be something like:
new FluentClass().Init<int>().With(-1).With(300).With(42).Save();
The problem is that people are using it this way (thinking it achieves the same as the above):
new FluentClass().Init<int>().With(-1).With(300).With(42);
So pervasive is this problem that, with entirely good intentions, another developer once actually changed the name of the "Init" method to indicate that THAT method was doing the "real work" of the software.
Logic errors like these are very difficult to spot, and, of course, it compiles, because it is perfectly acceptable to call a method with a return value and just "pretend" it returns void. Visual Studio doesn't care if you do this; your software will still compile and run (although in some cases I believe it throws a warning). This is a great feature to have, of course. Imagine a simple "InsertToDatabase" method that returns the ID of the new row as an integer - it is easy to see that there are some cases where we need that ID, and some cases where we could do without it.
In the case of this piece of software, there is definitively never any reason to eschew that "Save" function at the end of the method chain. It is a very specialized utility, and the only gain comes from the final step.
I want somebody's software to fail at the compiler level if they call "With()" and not "Save()".
It seems like an impossible task by traditional means - but that's why I come to you guys. Is there an Attribute I can use to prevent a method from being "cast to void" or some such?
Note: The alternate way of achieving this goal that has already been suggested to me is writing a suite of unit tests to enforce this rule, and using something like http://www.testdriven.net to bind them to the compiler. This is an acceptable solution, but I am hoping for something more elegant.

I don't know of a way to enforce this at a compiler level. It's often requested for objects which implement IDisposable as well, but isn't really enforceable.
One potential option which can help, however, is to set up your class, in DEBUG only, to have a finalizer that logs/throws/etc. if Save() was never called. This can help you discover these runtime problems while debugging instead of relying on searching the code, etc.
However, make sure that, in release mode, this is not used, as it will incur a performance overhead since the addition of an unnecessary finalizer is very bad on GC performance.

You could require specific methods to use a callback like so:
new FluentClass().Init<int>(x =>
{
x.Save(y =>
{
y.With(-1),
y.With(300)
});
});
The with method returns some specific object, and the only way to get that object is by calling x.Save(), which itself has a callback that lets you set up your indeterminate number of with statements. So the init takes something like this:
public T Init<T>(Func<MyInitInputType, MySaveResultType> initSetup)

I can think of three a few solutions, not ideal.
AIUI what you want is a function which is called when the temporary variable goes out of scope (as in, when it becomes available for garbage collection, but will probably not be garbage collected for some time yet). (See: The difference between a destructor and a finalizer?) This hypothetical function would say "if you've constructed a query in this object but not called save, produce an error". C++/CLI calls this RAII, and in C++/CLI there is a concept of a "destructor" when the object isn't used any more, and a "finaliser" which is called when it's finally garbage collected. Very confusingly, C# has only a so-called destructor, but this is only called by the garbage collector (it would be valid for the framework to call it earlier, as if it were partially cleaning the object immediately, but AFAIK it doesn't do anything like that). So what you would like is a C++/CLI destructor. Unfortunately, AIUI this maps onto the concept of IDisposable, which exposes a dispose() method which can be called when a C++/CLI destructor would be called, or when the C# destructor is called -- but AIUI you still have to call "dispose" manually, which defeats the point?
Refactor the interface slightly to convey the concept more accurately. Call the init function something like "prepareQuery" or "AAA" or "initRememberToCallSaveOrThisWontDoAnything". (The last is an exaggeration, but it might be necessary to make the point).
This is more of a social problem than a technical problem. The interface should make it easy to do the right thing, but programmers do have to know how to use code! Get all the programmers together. Explain simply once-and-for-all this simple fact. If necessary have them all sign a piece of paper saying they understand, and if they wilfully continue to write code which doesn't do anythign they're worse than useless to the company and will be fired.
Fiddle with the way the operators are chained, eg. have each of the intermediateClass functions assemble an aggregate intermediateclass object containing all of the parameters (you mostly do it this was already (?)) but require an init-like function of the original class to take that as an argument, rather than have them chained after it, and then you can have save and the other functions return two different class types (with essentially the same contents), and have init only accept a class of the correct type.
The fact that it's still a problem suggests that either your coworkers need a helpful reminder, or they're rather sub-par, or the interface wasn't very clear (perhaps its perfectly good, but the author didn't realise it wouldn't be clear if you only used it in passing rather than getting to know it), or you yourself have misunderstood the situation. A technical solution would be good, but you should probably think about why the problem occurred and how to communicate more clearly, probably asking someone senior's input.

After great deliberation and trial and error, it turns out that throwing an exception from the Finalize() method was not going to work for me. Apparently, you simply can't do that; the exception gets eaten up, because garbage collection operates non-deterministically. I was unable to get the software to call Dispose() automatically from the destructor either. Jack V.'s comment explains this well; here was the link he posted, for redundancy/emphasis:
The difference between a destructor and a finalizer?
Changing the syntax to use a callback was a clever way to make the behavior foolproof, but the agreed-upon syntax was fixed, and I had to work with it. Our company is all about fluent method chains. I was also a fan of the "out parameter" solution to be honest, but again, the bottom line is the method signatures simply could not change.
Helpful information about my particular problem includes the fact that my software is only ever to be run as part of a suite of unit tests - so efficiency is not a problem.
What I ended up doing was use Mono.Cecil to Reflect upon the Calling Assembly (the code calling into my software). Note that System.Reflection was insufficient for my purposes, because it cannot pinpoint method references, but I still needed(?) to use it to get the "calling assembly" itself (Mono.Cecil remains underdocumented, so it's possible I just need to get more familiar with it in order to do away with System.Reflection altogether; that remains to be seen....)
I placed the Mono.Cecil code in the Init() method, and the structure now looks something like:
public IntermediateClass<T> Init<T>()
{
ValidateUsage(Assembly.GetCallingAssembly());
return new IntermediateClass<T>();
}
void ValidateUsage(Assembly assembly)
{
// 1) Use Mono.Cecil to inspect the codebase inside the assembly
var assemblyLocation = assembly.CodeBase.Replace("file:///", "");
var monoCecilAssembly = AssemblyFactory.GetAssembly(assemblyLocation);
// 2) Retrieve the list of Instructions in the calling method
var methods = monoCecilAssembly.Modules...Types...Methods...Instructions
// (It's a little more complicated than that...
// if anybody would like more specific information on how I got this,
// let me know... I just didn't want to clutter up this post)
// 3) Those instructions refer to OpCodes and Operands....
// Defining "invalid method" as a method that calls "Init" but not "Save"
var methodCallingInit = method.Body.Instructions.Any
(instruction => instruction.OpCode.Name.Equals("callvirt")
&& instruction.Operand is IMethodReference
&& instruction.Operand.ToString.Equals(INITMETHODSIGNATURE);
var methodNotCallingSave = !method.Body.Instructions.Any
(instruction => instruction.OpCode.Name.Equals("callvirt")
&& instruction.Operand is IMethodReference
&& instruction.Operand.ToString.Equals(SAVEMETHODSIGNATURE);
var methodInvalid = methodCallingInit && methodNotCallingSave;
// Note: this is partially pseudocode;
// It doesn't 100% faithfully represent either Mono.Cecil's syntax or my own
// There are actually a lot of annoying casts involved, omitted for sanity
// 4) Obviously, if the method is invalid, throw
if (methodInvalid)
{
throw new Exception(String.Format("Bad developer! BAD! {0}", method.Name));
}
}
Trust me, the actual code is even uglier looking than my pseudocode.... :-)
But Mono.Cecil just might be my new favorite toy.
I now have a method that refuses to be run its main body unless the calling code "promises" to also call a second method afterwards. It's like a strange kind of code contract. I'm actually thinking about making this generic and reusable. Would any of you have a use for such a thing? Say, if it were an attribute?

What if you made it so Init and With don't return objects of type FluentClass? Have them return, e.g., UninitializedFluentClass which wraps a FluentClass object. Then calling .Save(0 on the UnitializedFluentClass object calls it on the wrapped FluentClass object and returns it. If they don't call Save they don't get a FluentClass object.

In Debug mode beside implementing IDisposable you can setup a timer that will throw a exception after 1 second if the resultmethod has not been called.

Use an out parameter! All the outs must be used.
Edit: I am not sure of it will help, tho...
It would break the fluent syntax.