Re: [NMock2-Dev] Fire syntax

[Andrey S. <as...@gm...>]

On 10/14/07, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote:
> What about error messages?  It looks convenient to write, but does it
> generate useful diagnostics when tests fail?  What is the name of an
> anonymous delegate?

I generally debug with TestDriven.Net -- Run With Debugger. You can
easily set a breakpoint in the anonymous delegate.
Anyway it is an Action not a matcher, so it never fails expectations.

> JMock and NMock2 were designed favour ease of maintenance over ease of
> writing.  E.g. when writing a test  it's worth spending a couple of
> minutes writing a new action class that can generate good error
> messages to save a couple of hours debugging time later in the project
> when that test fails unexpectedly.

I have never stumled into a situation where I looked at any Actions in log.
It is great to have diagnostics for expectations and *Unit asserts,
but it is much easier to step through code if test itself has a flaw.

And my suggestion is not an only holy way to do it.
If you prefer writing a new class, you can always do it this way.

Also, you do not have to use anonymous delegates -- if a delegate is
allowed, you can pass any method with the required signature.
Something like Will(Cause.Action(this.DoSomethingUseful)). The
anonymous delegates are better only if you want easier access to scope
variables.