public bool InvokePropertyChangedEvent
        {
            set
            {
                OnPropertyChanged(new PropertyChangedEventArgs("InvokePropertyChangedEvent"));
            }
        }

This is called like so: x.InvokePropertyChangedEvent = true;.

Basically, they couldn't figure out how to simulate a PropertyChangedEvent without changing a property, and this is what happened.

configurator:

        public bool InvokePropertyChangedEvent
        {
            set
            {
                OnPropertyChanged(new PropertyChangedEventArgs("InvokePropertyChangedEvent"));
            }
        }

This is called like so: x.InvokePropertyChangedEvent = true;.

Basically, they couldn't figure out how to simulate a PropertyChangedEvent without changing a property, and this is what happened.

Now if the property type was PropertyChangedEventArgs or even the constructor argument for same...it would be interesting...

configurator:

        public bool InvokePropertyChangedEvent
        {
            set
            {
                OnPropertyChanged(new PropertyChangedEventArgs("InvokePropertyChangedEvent"));
            }
        }

This is called like so: x.InvokePropertyChangedEvent = true;.

Basically, they couldn't figure out how to simulate a PropertyChangedEvent without changing a property, and this is what happened.

 

Is OnPropertyChanged visible outside the class? I know a lot of these methods are often declared protected override or protected virtual.

 

This reminds me of write only registers on custom hardware.

RaceProUK:

Is OnPropertyChanged visible outside the class?

Does that matter? InvokePropertyChangedEvent should be a method, not a setter.

configurator:

RaceProUK:

Is OnPropertyChanged visible outside the class?

Does that matter? InvokePropertyChangedEvent should be a method, not a setter.

 

Yes, it does matter.

RaceProUK:

configurator:

RaceProUK:

Is OnPropertyChanged visible outside the class?

Does that matter? InvokePropertyChangedEvent should be a method, not a setter.

Yes, it does matter.

If they're using the same MSDN sample code for handing PropertyChangedEvents that's been around since 2002, then no, it's protected. But either way, a) why is InvokePropertyChangedEvent a property when a method fits better with both the action and the name? b) Why don't they raise the visibility of OnPropertyChanged to public? It's in the source code... c) Why are they sending PropertyChangedEvents that say that no property they actually store a value for is changed?

TwelveBaud:

RaceProUK:

configurator:

RaceProUK:

Is OnPropertyChanged visible outside the class?

Does that matter? InvokePropertyChangedEvent should be a method, not a setter.

Yes, it does matter.

If they're using the same MSDN sample code for handing PropertyChangedEvents that's been around since 2002, then no, it's protected. But either way, a) why is InvokePropertyChangedEvent a property when a method fits better with both the action and the name? b) Why don't they raise the visibility of OnPropertyChanged to public? It's in the source code... c) Why are they sending PropertyChangedEvents that say that no property they actually store a value for is changed?

 

a) The handler being tested is OnPropertyChanged, so why not?
b) Because they'd have to remember to change it back again
c) Because they're testing the handler without wanting to change object state

RaceProUK:

a) The handler being tested is OnPropertyChanged, so why not?
b) Because they'd have to remember to change it back again
c) Because they're testing the handler without wanting to change object state

Why are you so quick to assume that they're testing?

TwelveBaud:

RaceProUK:

a) The handler being tested is OnPropertyChanged, so why not?
b) Because they'd have to remember to change it back again
c) Because they're testing the handler without wanting to change object state

Why are you so quick to assume that they're testing?

Who says they aren't?

RaceProUK:

Who says they aren't?

They aren't :-(

configurator:

RaceProUK:

Who says they aren't?

They aren't :-(

 

In that case they are fools of the greatest impertinence, and must be vanquished forthwith.

RaceProUK:

In that case they are fools of the greatest impertinence, and must be vanquished forthwith.

 

Their approach to testing suggests that Darwinism will soon sort that.

 

Cassidy:

Filed under: Lick these battery terminals

Get them to try it with a car battery, though if their tongue can bridge the terminals on one of those, then they can probably make a lot more money in a different career...

Only if they can breathe through their ears...