Darren Cauthon

Ah, I don't know about a major flaw... I've personally used this to write thousands upon thousands of tests, but have never come across this situation. If I were to...

Now that I think about it, I have come across this situation... but I always handled with a different design. Instead of: ``` c# public class ViewModel { public ViewModel(IScheduler...

My first thought is to use a string when registering to distinguish... but that wouldn't be very refactor-friendly. We could use the order, but again... refactor-friendly. But perhaps not as...

We could use `nameof()`... when it's available, though... isn't it coming in a later version of C#? And all of the examples I've seen of it are with things like...

Ah, I'd rather not. But perhaps there is a way to use a string as the identifier, which would leave it to the user to use nameof or not. But...

My first thought is "no." This project is dependent on Unity, but under the hood. If I were to upgrade Unity, no user of AutoMoq today would be able to...

Which one?

The problem is that I know nothing about the latest version of Unity. The version of Unity in AutoMoq is one that I've used on dozens of projects, so I...

To summarize: If I get a pull request that has this Unity upgrade and all of the existing tests pass, I will release a new major release of AutoMoq.

@celluj34 Yes... but the tests won't write the code. :) I tried some time ago to do this, but I was not able to make all of the tests pass....