Dominique Schuppli

@snake-scaly, there's no need to repost, the link to your post should suffice. Thanks for taking the time to add your two cents. It's reassuring to get another data point...

Thanks for the suggestion of test-driving the changed verification behaviour using the `dotnet/aspnetcore` project... that's a great idea. Will do! Regarding `VerifyNoOtherCalls`... sorry for that. :-) IIRC the alternative approach...

> In the example below, the Invocations on the `Bar` mock are not cleared. This appears to have always been the case [.] I'd have to check to be sure,...

Note to self: this may be related to #1120.

> `Clear(bool recursive = false)`. I think most people can quickly figure out what is going on when they see this signature in IntelliSense. I agree. The issue with such...

In this (artificial) example, wouldn't it be sufficient to give a more meaningful name to the test method itself (say, `Caller_does_not_invoke_component_for_values_not_between_2_and_43`)? Your test runner would then output that method name...

@tengl, have you since found a solution that works for you (without us having to extend Moq), or do you still want to follow up on this?

This has to happen over at DynamicProxy's repo, see their issue at https://github.com/castleproject/Core/issues/447.

I agree, the exception message could be more helpful in this case. ```csharp } //Debug call stack is here ``` (This is surprising, and unfortunate. Why would the Visual Studio...

Is this simply a usage question or do you believe this is a bug in Moq? That repro code is rather non-minimal. Is there any chance you could trim that...