Dominique Schuppli

`null` is definitely allowed, see e.g. here: https://github.com/moq/moq/blob/06d88ec526b2d879fa3520e4daed3abcd451953e/src/Moq/Mock%601.cs#L305-L308 What is missing, however, are nullable reference type annotations in all of Moq's public API. It would be nice to add those...

I've noticed that people tend to overuse `It.IsAnyType`. You can often just use `object` instead. Without repro code, it's hard to judge what you're doing right or wrong. Please provide...

Agreed that Moq has some funky rules regarding what's evaluated by value vs. by reference, and eagerly vs. lazily. And you're right that not all of that is documented... perhaps...

We may be able to fix this scenario. Say we have: ```csharp public interface IX { void Method(object[] args); } var mock = new Mock(); ``` And say we created...

> it is important that the behavior is consistent. I fully agree. > Comparison everywhere should be either by reference only or by value only. [...] as default comprising behaviour...

> And back to the issue, for now it would be enough to have a way to override the current behaviour. In your setup expression, use a `It.Is(x => x...

Hi @htcfreek. This capability first needs to be implemented in Castle DynamicProxy (the interceptor library that Moq is built upon) before it can be supported in Moq. There's already an...

@htcfreek, I wouldn't know (but I suspect it isn't), I stopped being a project maintainer and I stopped tracking this project due to the SponsorLink disaster.

@htcfreek, sorry, but I can no longer help you. I stopped maintaining and contributing to Moq last year, when kzu introduced SponsorLink, a move that I strongly disagreed with. (Search...

Recursive verification doesn't get much love, and you're not the first to complain about it. 😃 There has been a recent issue (I believe it was #892) were we discussed...