Menu
▾
▴
Re: [NMock2-Dev] Feature Request: "Stub" should have alower prioritythen "Expect"
|
From: <rdr...@ar...> - 2007-09-11 21:50:18
|
That would be a bahavior which would fix my "problem".
Maybe enable a flag in the mockery which defines the "search order" for the=
expectations?
I would find this behavior much more logical then the other way around. Wit=
hout it i have no way to override something i setup once without resulting =
to "trickery" (e.g. defining something that i consider a stub to be an expe=
ct.once so i can "remove" it with the exact call) =20
So instead of having my generic setup which creates everything thats not im=
portant for my test "outside" the test function, and only setting one expec=
tation i am actually currently testing inside of my test. And usually this=
leads to a buch of helper setup functions, which usually only differ in on=
e line, and its not trivial to refactor the other N lines out... Since the =
other n-1 functions would all differ in one different line...
Also i want to avoid and "logic" in my tests/setups... so a function with a=
flag to skip one of those lines also leaves a bad feeling...=20
Anyway... short conclusion: 2 Thumbs up for a flag that defines the search =
direction ;)
----- Original Nachricht ----
Von: Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...>
An: NMock2 Development Discussion <nmo...@li...=
>
Datum: 11.09.2007 21:31
Betreff: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Feature Request: "Stub" should have alower
=09prioritythen "Expect"
> JMock used to check expectations in reverse order so you could set up
> some default expectations (stubs usually) and then override them in
> individual tests. However, it was so confusing to users that we
> removed the feature and just check for expectation matches in the
> order that they are defined.
>=20
> We found that tests were far more readable if set-up was factored out
> into well-named methods called at the start of tests as appropriate
> than to define expectations in the SetUp method.
>=20
> --Nat
>=20
> On 11/09/2007, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote:
> > It's not a matter of priority, the design philosophy is such that NMock=
is
> expecting either a Stub or an Expectation, but not both. Stub is just
> another expectation internally, so if it is first in the list it will mat=
ch
> all comers.
> >
> > I could see having an explicit
> Expect.Once.On(foo).ReplacingExistingExpectations.SetProperty("Id");
> >
> > Which could find and clear all the existing expectations and replace it
> for that test case; however, I don't think I'd want to add in an implicit
> 'override' behavior between expectations.
> >
> > That's my opinion of course, if anyone else wants to chime in on this,
> please do.
> >
> > Nat, if you see this can you comment about the original nmock behavior =
for
> this case, were you able to set up a default and then override it for
> specific tests?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nmo...@li...
> [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Heiko
> Hatzfeld
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 9:07 AM
> > To: NMock2 Development Discussion
> > Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Feature Request: "Stub" should have alower
> prioritythen "Expect"
> >
> > Hello...
> >
> > Lets ignore the more complicated event code for a second, and get to th=
e
> "real problem" 1st...
> >
> > IDbObject foo =3D _mocks.NewMock<IDbObject>();
> > Stub.On(foo).SetProperty("Id");
> > Expect.Once.On(foo).SetProperty("Id");
> > foo.Id =3D 123;
> > _mocks.Verify.......;
> >
> > Say i have an Interface I want to mock. I know during my tests of anoth=
er
> class, there will be a buch of (generally unimportant)
> > method calls that must be "stub"ed so the test in general can run...
> >
> > But the stubs are not important, they just need to be there..
> > Example i supply a ILog mock which only has a method "Log"
> >
> > Now in most tests i dont care what will be logged... But on some i need=
to
> make sure the right message is passed into the logger...
> >
> > Now i need to override the Log stub and supply an expect.once with a
> certain message... now the logger interface might be simple... But if you=
do
> the same to a fairly complex view, then you need to stub all events etc s=
o
> the test can work.
> >
> > So back to the logger... My expection wont be fullfilled if i have defi=
ned
> a stub before the expection. the stub definition will swallow all calls t=
o
> Log() and the expection will never catch the "crutial" Log("SH..!!! bette=
r
> call someone NOW!")
> >
> > The exections and stubs have not been setup within an
> > using (mocks.Ordered)
> > {}
> >
> > block, so i think the expections should have a higher priority priority
> then the stubs... After all there is a way to define a strict order.
> >
> > I can post a full version of my event code if that is still requiered. =
But
> I dont want to go into a to much detail, since I see the problem as a mor=
e
> general one. I do have a workaround that works with my event code, but i
> think its a hack ;)
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > > Datum: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:58:06 -0500
> > > Von: "Steve Mitcham" <Ste...@ty...>
> > > An: "NMock2 Development Discussion"
> <nmo...@li...>
> > > Betreff: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Feature Request: "Stub" should have a lower
> prioritythen "Expect"
> >
> > > Can you give a more complete example of what you are trying to
> accomplish?
> > > In your sample, you could use Expect.AtLeastOnce as the expectation =
to
> > > achieve the same effect.
> > >
> > > I'm also not following your event code example. It appears that you a=
re
> > > only exercising the mocked view and nothing of a controller class is
> apparent
> > > in your sample. You need to give a better example here as well for m=
e
> to
> > > determine what it is you are trying to accomplish.
> > >
> > > I will say that in the current code drop there is some new event
> handling
> > > code that may suit your needs, so you can write the following (the
> sample
> > > is from the acceptance test)
> > >
> > > listenerMessage =3D null;
> > > Mockery mocks =3D new Mockery();
> > > Announcer announcer =3D (Announcer)
> mocks.NewMock(typeof(Announcer));
> > >
> > > Expect.Once.On(announcer).EventAdd("Listeners",
> Is.Anything);
> > >
> > > announcer.Listeners +=3D new
> Listener(DummyListener);
> > >
> > > Fire.Event("Listeners").On(announcer).With("Tes=
t
> Message");
> > >
> > > This might help to serve your purpose.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nmo...@li...
> > > [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Hei=
ko
> Hatzfeld
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 6:09 AM
> > > To: nmo...@li...
> > > Subject: [NMock2-Dev] Feature Request: "Stub" should have a lower
> > > prioritythen "Expect"
> > >
> > > Hello...
> > >
> > > This is my first post and I already got some complains.. I know its a
> > > great start, but here we go...
> > >
> > > Giving this code:
> > >
> > >
> > > IDbObject foo =3D _mocks.NewMock<IDbObject>();
> > > Stub.On(foo).SetProperty("Id");
> > > Expect.Once.On(foo).SetProperty("Id");
> > > foo.Id =3D 123;
> > > _mocks.Verify.......;
> > >
> > > It will generate an exception. The reason is that the above code will
> not
> > > satisfy my expection, since the stub which was defined 1st, will catc=
h
> the
> > > assignment and so the expection will never be reached.
> > >
> > > I think that an expection is much more important then a stub (Which i=
s
> > > kinda a "Fallback" only).
> > >
> > > For example... I want to test a controller for a view, and Verify tha=
t
> the
> > > events are propperly setup and processed...
> > >
> > > I cannot create an implicit setup for the view (which creates the vie=
w
> and
> > > stubs all events), and then attach a real expection onto the view, th=
at
> > > will allow me to sneak a mockEvent in, so i can fire it from the
> outside, and
> > > verify that the controler does its work.
> > >
> > > I currently need to declare an implicit setup, which defines
> expections,
> > > since those can be removed by adding a "fake" Handler on the Mock e.g=
.:
> > >
> > > //Inside CreateViewAndSetupBasicEvents Function
> > > Expect.Once.On(mockedView).EventAdd("Save", Is.Anything);
> > >
> > > //Inside my "real" test function...
> > > mockedView.Save +=3D null;
> > > Expect.Once.On(mockedView).EventAdd("Save", Is.Anything)
> > > .Will(MockEvent.Hookup(mockevent));
> > > mockEvent.Raise();
> > >
> > >
> > > Hope this makes sense....
> > >
> > > I know i could "fix" it, by creating the view 1st and then adding the
> > > expections, and THEN finally adding all the stubs... But i kinda got
> attached
> > > to my setup functions so i can create and setup a basic mock with one
> > > call... Without that I would have to move the creation of the mock
> around, and I
> > > feel like i am "loosing" some clarity in my test, if I move to much
> into
> > > the "general" setup method.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
> > > Ideal f=FCr Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer
> > >
> > >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> > > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> > > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NMock-two-dev mailing list
> > > NMo...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
> > >
> > >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> > > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> > > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NMock-two-dev mailing list
> > > NMo...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
> >
> > --
> > Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten
> > Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
--
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > _______________________________________________
> > NMock-two-dev mailing list
> > NMo...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
--
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > _______________________________________________
> > NMock-two-dev mailing list
> > NMo...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
> >
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> NMock-two-dev mailing list
> NMo...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
>
|