public void Required_spec203_blackbox_mustNotCallMethodsOnSubscriptionOrPublisherInOnError_shouldFail_dueToCallingCancel()
{
ISubscription subscription = null;
var subscriber = new LamdaSubscriber <int?>(onSubscribe: sub => subscription = sub,
onError: _ => subscription.Cancel());
var verification = CustomSubscriberVerification(subscriber);
RequireTestFailure(() => verification.Required_spec203_blackbox_mustNotCallMethodsOnSubscriptionOrPublisherInOnError(),
"Subscription.Cancel MUST NOT be called from Subscriber.OnError (Rule 2.3)!");
}
public void Required_spec210_blackbox_mustBePreparedToReceiveAnOnErrorSignalWithPrecedingRequestCall_shouldFail()
{
var subscriber = new LamdaSubscriber <int?>(onError: cause =>
{
// this is wrong in many ways (incl. spec violation), but aims to simulate user code which "blows up" when handling the onError signal
throw new Exception("Wrong, don't do this!", cause); // don't do this
});
var verification = CustomSubscriberVerification(subscriber);
RequireTestFailure(() => verification.Required_spec210_blackbox_mustBePreparedToReceiveAnOnErrorSignalWithPrecedingRequestCall(),
"Test Exception: Boom!"); // checks that the expected exception was delivered to onError, we don't expect anyone to implement onError so weirdly
}
public void Required_spec205_blackbox_mustCallSubscriptionCancelIfItAlreadyHasAnSubscriptionAndReceivesAnotherOnSubscribeSignal_shouldFail()
{
ISubscription subscription = null;
var subscriber = new LamdaSubscriber <int?>(onSubscribe: sub =>
{
subscription = sub;
sub.Request(1); // this is wrong, as one should always check if should accept or reject the subscription
});
var verification = CustomSubscriberVerification(subscriber);
RequireTestFailure(() => verification.Required_spec205_blackbox_mustCallSubscriptionCancelIfItAlreadyHasAnSubscriptionAndReceivesAnotherOnSubscribeSignal(),
"illegally called `Subscription.Request(1)`");
}