Document how to have a get/set property invoke a side-effect on a call to set and still persist the supplied value

From @DanielRose’s comment in #962

Possibly giving the example that he and @thomaslevesque collaborated on would be best:

A.CallToSet(() => foo.Bar).Invokes((int bar) =>
{
    A.CallTo(() => foo.Bar).Returns(bar);
    foo.BarChanged += Raise.With(foo, EventsArgs.Empty);
});

although maybe with some cutesy candy shoppe jargon. Or a lovesick robot.

[blairconrad]

Thanks for the ides, @DanielRose. I appreciate the effort you’ve put into looking through the documentation for likely points to add the new information. Some thoughts:

Add the “default” code to Default fake behavior for reference, i.e.

I’d rather not insert code at this point. I think the text here now does convey the default behaviour better than the code would, but if it’s still not clear enough, I’d like to explore non-code ways to explain it first, at least.

• Document an example (as above) in Property Setter and maybe also in Invoking Custom Code?
• Or mention that using such a configuration will override the default behaviour, and have a link to the default behaviour. In that case also include a custom example

The Specifying a call to a property setter section’s focus is more on how to specify which call to override, than actually overriding the code, so I’m again not super excited about putting the sample code in here. A reminder that actually configuring the setter will break the magic get/set relationship, with a pointer to your sample below, sounds like a good idea. The same kind of note could also be added to the Default fake behavior article.

A.CallToSet(() => foo.Bar).Invokes((int bar) =>
{
    foo.BarChanging += Raise.With(foo, EventsArgs.Empty); // foo.Bar returns the old value
    A.CallTo(() => foo.Bar).Returns(bar);
    foo.BarChanged += Raise.With(foo, EventsArgs.Empty); // foo.Bar returns the new value
});

I love this example, despite the lack of lovesick robots. As I sit here, my favourite course of action would be to add it as a “Case study” kind of thing on Invoking Custom Code, which, if I understood you right, was a suggestion you made above.

[blairconrad]

Thanks, @DanielRose . Look for your name in the release notes! 🥇