Failing test for a multibinder bug reported here:
http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice/browse_thread/thread/934e30b7ed0da98f/b90383ad4cd1228c
git-svn-id: https://google-guice.googlecode.com/svn/trunk@1577 d779f126-a31b-0410-b53b-1d3aecad763e
diff --git a/extensions/multibindings/test/com/google/inject/multibindings/MultibinderTest.java b/extensions/multibindings/test/com/google/inject/multibindings/MultibinderTest.java
index edab12f..28257c7 100644
--- a/extensions/multibindings/test/com/google/inject/multibindings/MultibinderTest.java
+++ b/extensions/multibindings/test/com/google/inject/multibindings/MultibinderTest.java
@@ -351,7 +351,7 @@
injector.getInstance(Key.get(setOfString));
fail();
} catch(ProvisionException expected) {
- assertContains(expected.getMessage(),
+ assertContains(expected.getMessage(),
"1) Set injection failed due to null element");
}
}
@@ -365,7 +365,7 @@
});
fail();
} catch (CreationException expected) {
- assertContains(expected.getMessage(), "No implementation for java.lang.Integer",
+ assertContains(expected.getMessage(), "No implementation for java.lang.Integer",
"at " + getClass().getName());
}
}
@@ -393,7 +393,7 @@
}
assertEquals(ImmutableSet.of("A", "B"), elements);
}
-
+
/**
* We just want to make sure that multibinder's binding depends on each of its values. We don't
* really care about the underlying structure of those bindings, which are implementation details.
@@ -404,7 +404,7 @@
Multibinder<String> multibinder = Multibinder.newSetBinder(binder(), String.class);
multibinder.addBinding().toInstance("A");
multibinder.addBinding().to(Key.get(String.class, Names.named("b")));
-
+
bindConstant().annotatedWith(Names.named("b")).to("B");
}});
@@ -416,8 +416,8 @@
// the right values are returned -- in tool stage we can't do that. It's also a
// little difficult to validate the dependencies & bindings, because they're
// bindings created internally within Multibinder.
- // To workaround this, we just validate that the dependencies lookup to a single
- // InstanceBinding whose value is "A" and another LinkedBinding whose target is
+ // To workaround this, we just validate that the dependencies lookup to a single
+ // InstanceBinding whose value is "A" and another LinkedBinding whose target is
// the Key of @Named("b") String=B
for (Dependency<?> dependency : withDependencies.getDependencies()) {
Binding<?> b = injector.getBinding(dependency.getKey());
@@ -437,10 +437,10 @@
fail("Unexpected dependency of: " + dependency);
}
}
-
+
assertNotNull(instanceBinding);
assertNotNull(linkedBinding);
-
+
assertEquals("A", instanceBinding.getInstance());
assertEquals(Key.get(String.class, Names.named("b")), linkedBinding.getLinkedKey());
}
@@ -599,4 +599,18 @@
expected.add(2);
assertEquals(expected, s1);
}
+
+ public void testSetAndMapValueConflict() {
+ Injector injector = Guice.createInjector(new AbstractModule() {
+ @Override protected void configure() {
+ Multibinder.newSetBinder(binder(), String.class)
+ .addBinding().toInstance("A");
+
+ MapBinder.newMapBinder(binder(), String.class, String.class)
+ .addBinding("B").toInstance("b");
+ }
+ });
+
+ assertEquals(ImmutableSet.<String>of("A"), injector.getInstance(Key.get(setOfString)));
+ }
}
