From 926b0662e793bc32cb2f324ea7c8cdde8e6495c6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Shannon Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 17:39:36 +1100 Subject: [PATCH] another note --- src/Umbraco.Tests.Integration/ContainerTests.cs | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/src/Umbraco.Tests.Integration/ContainerTests.cs b/src/Umbraco.Tests.Integration/ContainerTests.cs index 89cf2b5f7f..945eeda2f0 100644 --- a/src/Umbraco.Tests.Integration/ContainerTests.cs +++ b/src/Umbraco.Tests.Integration/ContainerTests.cs @@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ namespace Umbraco.Tests.Integration // The test below shows how it could be possible to resolve an instance and then re-register it as a factory // so that only one singleton instance is every created, but it's hacky and like Fowler says in that article // it means the container won't be disposed, and maybe other services? not sure. + // In cases where we use it can we use IConfigureOptions? https://andrewlock.net/access-services-inside-options-and-startup-using-configureoptions/ var umbracoContainer = RuntimeTests.GetUmbracoContainer(out var serviceProviderFactory);