@vmuriart what happens with multiple arguments, when overloaded methods haveobject argument?

@denfromufa good question. No idea.

foo(int a, object b)
foo(object a, int b)
foo(object a, object b)
foo(int a, int b)

These 4 functions look enough to cover the possibilities or do I need more?

we need one super-loaded method which covers all these cases from this meta-issue :)

#265

That sounds much broader than the scope of thispull_request.
I'm planning on refactoringmethodbinder to clean up alot of what is going in there.

@vmuriart I understand, your example looks good. My suggestion was not serious anyway. But we may hit issues when dealing with sub-classes and ambiguous cases in the overload. IMO, pythonnet should be very strict by default in method resolution. See examples how C# compiler had to break method overloading in .NET 4.0:

http://csharpindepth.com/Articles/General/Overloading.aspx

@denfromufa No worries. My goal is to restore similar behavior to whatpythonnet==2.0.0 had irt method objects. I had to freeze the version of pythonnet I was using tov2.0 because of it.
I'm ok w switching to a stricter method resolution, as long as it is part ofv3.0 😄

@denfromufa Multiple arguments with objects works as expected.

@vmuriart no failure cases in overloads to make sure that they fail. No strings in overloaded method arguments when creating the methods in c#, but then you use strings as arguments when invoking from python.

I think I understood your request correctly. I added a test to check for failure/exception.

@denfromufa I think you are asking forthese tests I added them on aseparate commit.

Earlier when I was working on this pull request I used those tests to make sure I wasn't reverting the behavior you are describing. On earlier implementations, I reverted the behavior so those tests kept me in check.

The string-string check is analogous to theint-int check vsobj-obj check

@vmuriart string check is not analogous, you are assuming that strings are object in your tests. In fact string is subclass of object.

@denfromufaint are also a subclass ofSystem.Object.

System.Object   System.ValueType      System.Int32

Sources:

• http://stackoverflow.com/a/8153167/5208670
• https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.string(v=vs.110).aspx

yes, int is also object subclass. However you use int in C# overloaded methods, while not using strings. Let me give some examples.

@vmuriart here is what I suggested to add. I cannot test locally, due to#385

publicstaticstringTestOverloadedObject(objecto){return"Got object";}publicstaticstringTestOverloadedObjectTwo(inta,intb){return"Got int-int";}publicstaticstringTestOverloadedObjectTwo(stringa,stringb){return"Got string-string";}publicstaticstringTestOverloadedObjectTwo(stringa,intb){return"Got string-int";}publicstaticstringTestOverloadedObjectTwo(stringa,objectb){return"Got string-object";}publicstaticstringTestOverloadedObjectTwo(inta,objectb){return"Got int-object";}publicstaticstringTestOverloadedObjectTwo(objecta,intb){return"Got object-int";}publicstaticstringTestOverloadedObjectTwo(objecta,objectb){return"Got object-object";}publicstaticstringTestOverloadedObjectThree(objecta,intb){return"Got object-int";}publicstaticstringTestOverloadedObjectThree(inta,objectb){return"Got int-object";}

deftest_object_in_multiparam():"""Test method with object multiparams behaves"""res=MethodTest.TestOverloadedObjectTwo(5,5)assertres=="Got int-int"res=MethodTest.TestOverloadedObjectTwo(5,"foo")assertres=="Got int-object"res=MethodTest.TestOverloadedObjectTwo("foo",5)assertres=="Got object-int"res=MethodTest.TestOverloadedObjectTwo("foo","bar")assertres=="Got object-object"res=MethodTest.TestOverloadedObjectTwo("foo",System.Object)assertres=="Got string-object"res=MethodTest.TestOverloadedObjectTwo("foo","bar")assertres=="Got string-string"res=MethodTest.TestOverloadedObjectTwo("foo",5)assertres=="Got string-int"

@denfromufa Added your tests, but had to modify remove a couple of the conditions I had added earlier since the function signatures had changed.

@vmuriart I left 2 comments inline with the code

@denfromufa Added the parenthesis. Good to squash-merge?

you did not address the second comment.@vmuriart will this break if you add:

public static string TestOverloadedObjectTwo(int a, string b)        {            return "Got int-string";        }

There was only a single comment.

And the answer is no. It simply changes the result of which method is used as it will pick the closest match it can find before it pickedobject.

so can you add it? because testing closest match is important.

so you don't see this?

It's not there. It even says on your screen shot that itspending.

Codecov Report

Merging#377 intomaster willincrease coverage by0.07%.
The diff coverage is100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@##           master     #377      +/-   ##==========================================+ Coverage   63.27%   63.35%   +0.07%==========================================  Files          61       61                Lines        5226     5226                Branches      860      860              ==========================================+ Hits         3307     3311       +4+ Misses       1697     1695       -2+ Partials      222      220       -2

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend -Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact),ø = not affected,? = missing data
Powered byCodecov. Last updatee753b72...0ae9c38. Read thecomment docs.

Added test and its passing as well.

@denfromufa test added and passing as well.

@vmuriart I'm still surprised that this does not break ;) i approve on my side. in the future we should definitely improve testing all these combinations of arguments by using hypothesis or parametrizing pytest. Let's release v2.3.0.dev1 version after this merge.

@filmor@tonyroberts please review!

@denfromufa I didn't want to introduceparametrizing tests yet. I figured I'd slowly introducepy.test features instead of all at once.