[Mono-bugs] [Bug 76647][Wis] Changed - TypeDescriptor.GetProperties is implemented different in MONO than in MS.NET

[bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla.ximian.com]

Please do not reply to this email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the
URL shown below and enter your comments there.

Changed by toshok at ximian.com.

http://bugzilla.ximian.com/show_bug.cgi?id=76647

--- shadow/76647	2005-11-08 10:55:09.000000000 -0500
+++ shadow/76647.tmp.22195	2006-11-09 02:57:34.000000000 -0500
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+Bug#: 76647
+Product: Mono: Class Libraries
+Version: 1.1
+OS: unknown
+OS Details: 
+Status: NEW   
+Resolution: 
+Severity: Unknown
+Priority: Wishlist
+Component: System
+AssignedTo: toshok at ximian.com                            
+ReportedBy: roeie at mainsoft.com               
+QAContact: mono-bugs at ximian.com
+TargetMilestone: ---
+URL: 
+Cc: 
+Summary: TypeDescriptor.GetProperties is implemented different in MONO than in MS.NET
+
+Description of Problem:
+
+when creating an object that implements the 
+interface "System.ComponentModel.ICustomTypeDescriptor", and then 
+invoking the following method:
+TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(myObj);
+The results are different between MONO and MS.NET.
+In MS.NET the implemented method "PropertyDescriptorCollection 
+GetProperties()" is invoked while in mono the implemented 
+method: "PropertyDescriptorCollection GetProperties(Attribute[] 
+attributes)" is invoked.
+ 
+Steps to reproduce the problem:
+implement the interface "System.ComponentModel.ICustomTypeDescriptor" and 
+invoke TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(obj) on it.
+or run the attached file.
+
+Actual Results:
+
+different in MONO and .NET
+
+Expected Results:
+
+should the same
+
+How often does this happen? 
+
+
+Additional Information:
+
+------- Additional Comments From roeie at mainsoft.com  2005-11-08 10:46 -------
+Created an attachment (id=16034)
+test case file
+
+
+------- Additional Comments From roeie at mainsoft.com  2005-11-08 10:53 -------
+Created an attachment (id=16035)
+A proposed solution
+
+
+------- Additional Comments From roeie at mainsoft.com  2005-11-08 10:55 -------
+I think that instead of delegating the work to the second method, 
+this method should do the work itself.
+I have attached a proposed solution.