public static class MoqExtensions
{
public static IReturnsResult<TMock>ReturnsInOrder<TMock, TResult>(this ISetup<TMock, TResult setup, params TResult[] values) where TMock : class
{
var valueQueue = new Queue<TResult>(values);
return setup.Returns(valueQueue.Dequeue);
}
}

public static class MoqExtensions
{
public static IReturnsResult ReturnsInOrder(this ISetup setup, params TResult[] values) where TMock : class
{
var valueQueue = new Queue(values);
return setup.Returns(valueQueue.Dequeue);
}
}

Fair enough. I took your code and “ported” it back to Moq 2.x, and while I was at it I added an overload which simply took an array of TResult, so it’s possible to have both! Pretty handy!

Is there any reason why your “ReturnsInOrder” method couldn’t take an array of TResult rather than Func?

I ran into the problem of setting “ordered” results while playing with callbacks.. That is why i choose for functions instead of values.

You could simply pass the valueFunctions array into the constructor of your Queue, rather than ‘foreaching’ over it and Enqueueing every item individually.

You are absolutely right. While i was writing the method i looked for a constructed that accepted an IEnumerable but didn’t find see it. Now that i’m more awake, i could easily spot it Thanks for the feedback.

Is there any reason why your “ReturnsInOrder” method couldn’t take an array of TResult rather than Func? Have you only done that for the added flexibility of lazy evaluation?

Thanks for the ping!