Menu
▾
▴
nmock-two-dev — Discussion of development of NMock 2
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2005 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(17) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
(13) |
Oct
|
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 |
Jan
|
Feb
(99) |
Mar
(42) |
Apr
(8) |
May
(17) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(26) |
Dec
|
| 2007 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(21) |
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(21) |
Sep
(20) |
Oct
(33) |
Nov
(26) |
Dec
|
| 2008 |
Jan
(45) |
Feb
(8) |
Mar
|
Apr
(2) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(1) |
| 2009 |
Jan
|
Feb
(4) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(9) |
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
|
From: Stephen F. <st...@m3...> - 2006-02-03 11:42:59
|
These days, I'd prefer SF if that's where the project is. S. On 3 Feb 2006, at 10:22, Joe Walnes wrote: >> Who's in charge of the nmock.org homepage? > > That'll be me. > > Anything you need, just ask me. I'm actually keen to get it off my > server - maybe it could be hosted by SF or TW? |
|
From: Mike R. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-03 10:35:55
|
On 03/02/06, Joe Walnes <jo...@tr...> wrote: > > Anything you need, just ask me. I'm actually keen to get it off my > server - maybe it could be hosted by SF or TW? > My suggestion would be to use SF - I think there are too many interested parties (now) external to ThoughtWorks to use a TW-hosted site. Mike |
|
From: Joe W. <jo...@tr...> - 2006-02-03 10:29:55
|
> Who's in charge of the nmock.org homepage? That'll be me. Anything you need, just ask me. I'm actually keen to get it off my server - maybe it could be hosted by SF or TW? -Joe |
|
From: Mike R. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-02 22:03:29
|
On 02/02/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > > 2 - Do you need me to setup a project on CCNetLive for nmock2? > > That would be great. We're currently building NMock using the 'cruise' target in its buildfile. It copies zip files to a directory on ccnetlive that we share to the world. Check the following: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/ccnet/ccnetlive/ccnet.config?rev=3D1.= 22&view=3Dauto http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/nmock/nmock/nmock.build?rev=3D1.14&vi= ew=3Dauto just let me know what buildfile and which target once you're sorted. Mike |
|
From: <sco...@rk...> - 2006-02-02 21:08:45
|
Also the "naming wart" lets the projects live side by side in code pretty well. Before I migrated completely over to NMock2, I had many files that made use of both libraries. I was very appreciative of that.=20 =20 ________________________________ From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Mike Mason Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 3:57 PM To: nmo...@li... Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Current state of NMock2 and .Net mock libraries =20 On 2/2/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: Personally, I'm not keen on the NMock2 label. There was a lot of fuss when we talked about a new version about supporting people in transition between the versions. I think that particular project has closed now, so who's left to complain?=20 I'm late into this NMock stuff so I'm unaware of the previous situation/fuss. Is the nmock2 project on SourceForge the one you mean is closed? =20 The nice people at MS have put a whole bunch of infrastructure into .Net to support packaging and versioning, so why add a wart to the name? If this version lasts any length of time, NMock 1 will just be a passing phase.=20 =20 I'm concerned that the code we're using and working on now, in the nmock CVS repostitory under module nmock2, is so completely different to the currently released nmock that there is no real upgrade path. The old one is record/replay, the new one is jMock-style definition of expectations. The reason I like calling it "nmock2" is that it deliberately tells people something significant is different. I'm not sure releasing "nmock version 2.0" is appropriate -- the codebase is totally new and someone using nmock 1 couldn't reasonably expect to upgrade. It's true there are tons of projects with a fairly crappy "2" suffix -- Apache2, Nunit2.2 , etc -- but if the naming wart helps advertise and encourage use of a new version I think it's warranted. I definitely don't want to plough through stuff just because I think it's the right thing to do, so please let's keep the discussion going.=20 Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-02 21:06:02
|
NMock1 was a port of DynaMock, not a record/replay style of mock.=20 DynaMock was the precursor to jMock, so the Java people have been down this path already -- being cruelly abandoned by the developers of DynaMock when they started working on jMock (I'm very ashamed). There are a whole bunch of issues that need to be ironed out version-wise. Things that can be version-aware are: branding, assembly versioning/naming and CLR namespaces. Branding, we should big up the version 2, just as NUnit does. It will increase buzz. Also, the major version number increase communicates to users that this is not backwardly compatible. The assembly should be versioned and strongly named as well so that it can be installed side-by-side with NMock1. The tricky issue is the namespace. If we change the namespace to NMock2 we allow the same assembly to compile against NMock1 and NMock2 simultaneously. On the other hand, it's butt ugly. The only code that will use NMock2 is test code. If some projects that want to use both versions, it's not a big deal to have two test assemblies for the same tested assembly, one test assembly using NMock1, one using NMock2. So I suggest using NMock for the namespace name as well. --Nat. On 2/2/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > On 2/2/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: > > Personally, I'm not keen on the NMock2 label. There was a lot of fuss > > when we talked about a new version about supporting people in > > transition between the versions. I think that particular project has > > closed now, so who's left to complain? > > I'm late into this NMock stuff so I'm unaware of the previous > situation/fuss. Is the nmock2 project on SourceForge the one you mean is > closed? > > > The nice people at MS have put a whole bunch of infrastructure > > into .Net to support packaging and versioning, so why add a wart to > > the name? If this version lasts any length of time, NMock 1 will just > > be a passing phase. > > I'm concerned that the code we're using and working on now, in the nmock = CVS > repostitory under module nmock2, is so completely different to the curren= tly > released nmock that there is no real upgrade path. The old one is > record/replay, the new one is jMock-style definition of expectations. The > reason I like calling it "nmock2" is that it deliberately tells people > something significant is different. I'm not sure releasing "nmock version > 2.0" is appropriate -- the codebase is totally new and someone using nmoc= k 1 > couldn't reasonably expect to upgrade. > > It's true there are tons of projects with a fairly crappy "2" suffix -- > Apache2, Nunit2.2 , etc -- but if the naming wart helps advertise and > encourage use of a new version I think it's warranted. I definitely don't > want to plough through stuff just because I think it's the right thing to > do, so please let's keep the discussion going. > > Cheers, > Mike. > |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-02 21:02:19
|
On 2/2/06, Mike Roberts <mik...@gm...> wrote: > > 2 things. > > 1 - I'm an NMock user, any chance of getting some brief docs of what's > changed? About 8 months ago Nat ported the jMock code to .Net, and it's currently living in the nmock CVS repository under the nmock2 module. The code is ful= l on jMock conversational style, not the old record/playback style of EasyMock. I found the old NMock stuff really difficult to use, but someone luckily pointed me towards nmock2. We've been using that for 3 projects her= e in Canada and it's very very nice indeed. Me and a bunch of others would like to see it out the door in some kind of official release. 2 - Do you need me to setup a project on CCNetLive for nmock2? > (there's already an NMock build happening) > (http://ccnetlive.thoughtworks.com/) That would be great. I think we're figuring out what to call the new codebase and where to have it hosted (is it part of nmock, or a new nmock2 project, etc). Once that's sorted a Cruise build would be stonking. Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-02 20:58:18
|
Answers: 1. Everything. 2. Yes please! More on 1. I wrote NMock2 from scratch without looking at the NMock1 code. It's a mix of things I wanted to improve in jMock and API ideas from OO-Matron all implemented in shiny .NET goodness. On 2/2/06, Mike Roberts <mik...@gm...> wrote: > 2 things. > > 1 - I'm an NMock user, any chance of getting some brief docs of what's ch= anged? > > 2 - Do you need me to setup a project on CCNetLive for nmock2? > (there's already an NMock build happening) > (http://ccnetlive.thoughtworks.com/) > > Mike > > -- > mike roberts | http://www.mikebroberts.com/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log fi= les > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=103432&bid#0486&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-02 20:57:32
|
On 2/2/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: > > Personally, I'm not keen on the NMock2 label. There was a lot of fuss > when we talked about a new version about supporting people in > transition between the versions. I think that particular project has > closed now, so who's left to complain? I'm late into this NMock stuff so I'm unaware of the previous situation/fuss. Is the nmock2 project on SourceForge the one you mean is closed? The nice people at MS have put a whole bunch of infrastructure > into .Net to support packaging and versioning, so why add a wart to > the name? If this version lasts any length of time, NMock 1 will just > be a passing phase. I'm concerned that the code we're using and working on now, in the nmock CV= S repostitory under module nmock2, is so completely different to the currentl= y released nmock that there is no real upgrade path. The old one is record/replay, the new one is jMock-style definition of expectations. The reason I like calling it "nmock2" is that it deliberately tells people something significant is different. I'm not sure releasing "nmock version 2.0" is appropriate -- the codebase is totally new and someone using nmock = 1 couldn't reasonably expect to upgrade. It's true there are tons of projects with a fairly crappy "2" suffix -- Apache2, Nunit2.2, etc -- but if the naming wart helps advertise and encourage use of a new version I think it's warranted. I definitely don't want to plough through stuff just because I think it's the right thing to do, so please let's keep the discussion going. Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Mike R. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-02 20:49:11
|
2 things. 1 - I'm an NMock user, any chance of getting some brief docs of what's chan= ged? 2 - Do you need me to setup a project on CCNetLive for nmock2? (there's already an NMock build happening) (http://ccnetlive.thoughtworks.com/) Mike -- mike roberts | http://www.mikebroberts.com/ |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-02 20:49:00
|
Sounds good to me. Use strong naming to distinguish versions. Just don't install into the GAC! On 2/2/06, Stephen Freeman <st...@m3...> wrote: > Personally, I'm not keen on the NMock2 label. There was a lot of fuss > when we talked about a new version about supporting people in > transition between the versions. I think that particular project has > closed now, so who's left to complain? > > The nice people at MS have put a whole bunch of infrastructure > into .Net to support packaging and versioning, so why add a wart to > the name? If this version lasts any length of time, NMock 1 will just > be a passing phase. > > It's certainly worth trimming the committer list on NMock. There are > some people there who never committed anything, I think. > > And a clean version would be /very/ welcome. > > S. > > On 2 Feb 2006, at 16:44, Mike Mason wrote: > > I've got in touch with Nick Hines who's the admin for the nmock2 > > project on > > SourceForge. He's very amenable to us moving the codebase there, so > > I've > > asked for admin privs on that project. I was going to simply take a > > CVS > > tarball and move just the nmock2 stuff over -- does this make sense? I > > figure having all the Nmock2 stuff in its own SourceForge project > > is the > > easiest thing for people to find and access, as long as no-one gets > > confused > > and tries to use the old stuff (probably only a problem for people > > who know > > about it, which is like 4 people or something). > > > > Once moved, we can really get into the code, apply all the pending > > patches, > > and give it a general once-over before putting up a 0.9 release > > (naming > > hints appreciated). > > > > Who's in charge of the nmock.org homepage? > > > > Cheers, > > Mike. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log fi= les > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D103432&bid=3D230486&dat= =3D121642 > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
|
From: Stephen F. <st...@m3...> - 2006-02-02 20:36:35
|
Personally, I'm not keen on the NMock2 label. There was a lot of fuss when we talked about a new version about supporting people in transition between the versions. I think that particular project has closed now, so who's left to complain? The nice people at MS have put a whole bunch of infrastructure into .Net to support packaging and versioning, so why add a wart to the name? If this version lasts any length of time, NMock 1 will just be a passing phase. It's certainly worth trimming the committer list on NMock. There are some people there who never committed anything, I think. And a clean version would be /very/ welcome. S. On 2 Feb 2006, at 16:44, Mike Mason wrote: > I've got in touch with Nick Hines who's the admin for the nmock2 > project on > SourceForge. He's very amenable to us moving the codebase there, so > I've > asked for admin privs on that project. I was going to simply take a > CVS > tarball and move just the nmock2 stuff over -- does this make sense? I > figure having all the Nmock2 stuff in its own SourceForge project > is the > easiest thing for people to find and access, as long as no-one gets > confused > and tries to use the old stuff (probably only a problem for people > who know > about it, which is like 4 people or something). > > Once moved, we can really get into the code, apply all the pending > patches, > and give it a general once-over before putting up a 0.9 release > (naming > hints appreciated). > > Who's in charge of the nmock.org homepage? > > Cheers, > Mike. |
|
From: Gary F. <sf_...@ma...> - 2006-02-02 16:58:23
|
Nat Pryce wrote: >1. apply the patches that have been submitted >2. finish the DefaultResultStub and hook it into the API with some nice syntax >3. write an automated release script >4. get a release out the door >5. update the nmock.org website to hype NMock2. > > May I suggest another task to put on the list as high priority, though not necessarily before the next release: Write an overview of the architecture directed towards people who want to help with the code. I know I've plodded my way through it, and rediscovered one of those pending patches on my own, but it would be helpful, even after the fact, to describe the organization, the control flow of the program (i.e. what happens when you invoke a mock), and perhaps the rationale for major decisions. This needn't be fancy nor deep, but a couple of pages might encourage more people to get involved. Since I don't work with it everyday, I've already forgotten what I've learned about the architecture last time, and I'm not eager to repeat that. Gary |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-02 16:44:46
|
I've got in touch with Nick Hines who's the admin for the nmock2 project on SourceForge. He's very amenable to us moving the codebase there, so I've asked for admin privs on that project. I was going to simply take a CVS tarball and move just the nmock2 stuff over -- does this make sense? I figure having all the Nmock2 stuff in its own SourceForge project is the easiest thing for people to find and access, as long as no-one gets confuse= d and tries to use the old stuff (probably only a problem for people who know about it, which is like 4 people or something). Once moved, we can really get into the code, apply all the pending patches, and give it a general once-over before putting up a 0.9 release (naming hints appreciated). Who's in charge of the nmock.org homepage? Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-02-02 10:42:56
|
Hi everyone. I guess NMock2 is my fault! Unfortunately I don't really have the time or infrastructure to support my orphan: where I have access to Windows and Visual Studio I'm behind a firewall and at home I use Linux. I would suggest the following tasks before release: 1. apply the patches that have been submitted 2. finish the DefaultResultStub and hook it into the API with some nice syn= tax 3. write an automated release script 4. get a release out the door 5. update the nmock.org website to hype NMock2. I wholeheartedly agree with M. Scott Ford: get it out the door as soon as possible. However, "NMock" is a good brand so I would suggest using the existing nmock.org website as the site for NMock2. The reason that I called it NMock2 instead of SharpMock (it's original name) was because Joe W convinced me that it was worth riding on the coattails of the NMock brand. I suggest number three so that you can easily do frequent releases.=20 The problem we have on jMock is that releases are difficult to do and so they don't happen often enough. --Nat On 2/2/06, M. Scott Ford <va...@sc...> wrote: > I have tried to do some evangilizing for the project on my own[1]. > NMock2 is the search term that leads people to my blog more than any > others. (Okay, so I don't have a very good blog. :)). > > The trouble is, it has become hard for me to push for it when my patches > were ignored. And there have been no releases. And the mailing list has > been dead.... I think you see where I am going. If you guys don't have > time for the project, then maybe you need to open it up for people that d= o. > > I am not saying that I am that person, but I am sure that I could find > *some* time each week to devote to this project. I *really* like this > product. I have not really given rhino.mock a hard look. But I really > like that NMock2 *does not* support mocking concrete or abstract classes. > > I have used NMock2 in two projects at work now. I have tried very hard > to fix any bugs that I have found, but I honestly have not found many. > And certaintly not any in the last several months (whenever I submitted > my last patch). If that is not stability then I am not sure what is. > > I say release it already. Get it it's own webspace. Maybe even move it > into the NMock2 SF project. I am willing to help out in any way that I > can. I really like NMock2, and I want to support it so that others can > come to like it, too. > > -Scott > > [1]: http://vaderpi.scottandlaurie.com/blog/index.php?cat=3D6 > > > Stephen Freeman wrote: > > > > > On 1 Feb 2006, at 23:15, Mike Mason wrote: > > > >> - is rhino.mock the defacto standard now? > > > > > > I sure hope not since they nicked all our ideas :) > > > >> Basically, is it worth the effort to get NMock 2.0 out there. I'm > >> very happy > >> to spend some time getting finishing touches applied, but if we've > >> missed > >> the boat and are no longer state of the art I'd kinda like to know ;-) > > > > > > I would have thought so. We never thought that record/playback was > > that good a model for working with mocks. Partly the answer to this > > question depends on people like you and whether you're prepared to > > drone on-and-on, er, evangelise some for the project. That people are > > charging for some of the other versions is ridiculous. > > > > S. > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log > > files > > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D103432&bid=3D230486&dat= =3D121642 > > _______________________________________________ > > NMock-two-dev mailing list > > NMo...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log fi= les > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D103432&bid=3D230486&dat= =3D121642 > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
|
From: M. S. F. <va...@sc...> - 2006-02-02 02:10:25
|
I have tried to do some evangilizing for the project on my own[1]. NMock2 is the search term that leads people to my blog more than any others. (Okay, so I don't have a very good blog. :)). The trouble is, it has become hard for me to push for it when my patches were ignored. And there have been no releases. And the mailing list has been dead.... I think you see where I am going. If you guys don't have time for the project, then maybe you need to open it up for people that do. I am not saying that I am that person, but I am sure that I could find *some* time each week to devote to this project. I *really* like this product. I have not really given rhino.mock a hard look. But I really like that NMock2 *does not* support mocking concrete or abstract classes. I have used NMock2 in two projects at work now. I have tried very hard to fix any bugs that I have found, but I honestly have not found many. And certaintly not any in the last several months (whenever I submitted my last patch). If that is not stability then I am not sure what is. I say release it already. Get it it's own webspace. Maybe even move it into the NMock2 SF project. I am willing to help out in any way that I can. I really like NMock2, and I want to support it so that others can come to like it, too. -Scott [1]: http://vaderpi.scottandlaurie.com/blog/index.php?cat=6 Stephen Freeman wrote: > > On 1 Feb 2006, at 23:15, Mike Mason wrote: > >> - is rhino.mock the defacto standard now? > > > I sure hope not since they nicked all our ideas :) > >> Basically, is it worth the effort to get NMock 2.0 out there. I'm >> very happy >> to spend some time getting finishing touches applied, but if we've >> missed >> the boat and are no longer state of the art I'd kinda like to know ;-) > > > I would have thought so. We never thought that record/playback was > that good a model for working with mocks. Partly the answer to this > question depends on people like you and whether you're prepared to > drone on-and-on, er, evangelise some for the project. That people are > charging for some of the other versions is ridiculous. > > S. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log > files > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev |
|
From: Stephen F. <st...@m3...> - 2006-02-01 23:39:52
|
On 1 Feb 2006, at 23:15, Mike Mason wrote: > - is rhino.mock the defacto standard now? I sure hope not since they nicked all our ideas :) > Basically, is it worth the effort to get NMock 2.0 out there. I'm > very happy > to spend some time getting finishing touches applied, but if we've > missed > the boat and are no longer state of the art I'd kinda like to know ;-) I would have thought so. We never thought that record/playback was that good a model for working with mocks. Partly the answer to this question depends on people like you and whether you're prepared to drone on-and-on, er, evangelise some for the project. That people are charging for some of the other versions is ridiculous. S. |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-02-01 23:15:16
|
Hey everyone, We're getting some time between projects here in Calgary. Might be a couple of days, might be a bit more. I'd like to try and get an NMock 2.0 release out of the door because it's a great library and I much prefer it to NMock 1.0. Questions: - what needs doing to get 2.0 out of the door? - what is the nmock community looking like right at the moment? - is rhino.mock the defacto standard now? Basically, is it worth the effort to get NMock 2.0 out there. I'm very happ= y to spend some time getting finishing touches applied, but if we've missed the boat and are no longer state of the art I'd kinda like to know ;-) Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: <sco...@rk...> - 2005-11-17 16:46:02
|
Is there any news on this patch? I have not seen a commit message. -----Original Message----- From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Nat Pryce Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 12:42 PM To: nmo...@li... Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Ordered Bug No I didn't have the chance. Please check it in! I'm currently behind firewalls and whatnot which make it hard to contribute. On 9/28/05, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > On 9/2/05, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > Sweet. Thanks > > > > Hey Nat did you apply this patch? I just checked in an attempt to fix > Mockery.cs for non 2.0 users, but since I don't have a VS2003 installation I > can't test it. > > Cheers, > Mike. > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ NMock-two-dev mailing list NMo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev |
|
From: <sco...@rk...> - 2005-11-03 20:52:15
|
Hello, =20 I just got the RTM build of Visual Studio 2005 installed at work today. I built NMock2 and ran the acceptance tests only to notice that 12 of them were failing with a TypeLoadExcepction. I figured out how to get them to pass, but I am not sure why they were failing. All of the failing tests were mocking interfaces that were not decorated with public. Adding public to these interfaces made all the tests pass.=20 =20 My guess is that this has something to do with code access security, but I am really not sure. Any ideas? =20 -Scott |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2005-09-29 16:42:46
|
No I didn't have the chance. Please check it in! I'm currently behind firewalls and whatnot which make it hard to contribute. On 9/28/05, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote: > On 9/2/05, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > Sweet. Thanks > > > > Hey Nat did you apply this patch? I just checked in an attempt to fix > Mockery.cs for non 2.0 users, but since I don't have a VS2003 installatio= n I > can't test it. > > Cheers, > Mike. > |
|
From: Mike M. <mik...@gm...> - 2005-09-28 16:01:29
|
On 9/2/05, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > Sweet. Thanks > Hey Nat did you apply this patch? I just checked in an attempt to fix Mockery.cs for non 2.0 users, but since I don't have a VS2003 installation = I can't test it. Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: <sco...@rk...> - 2005-09-20 14:00:38
|
I did not think about a custom action. Thanks!
-----Original Message-----
From: nmo...@li...
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Nat
Pryce
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 9:51 AM
To: nmo...@li...
Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Stub Bug?
That's expected behaviour. Stubs and expectations are matched in the
order that they are specified. The first stub that you specify will
match the invocation and the second will never be invoked because it
is masked by the first.
Instead, write a custom Action that returns one value the first time
it is invoked and another the second time it is invoked.
--Nat.
On 9/20/05, sco...@rk... <sco...@rk...> wrote:
> =20
> =20
>=20
> I have run across a potential problem with stubs. Hopefully the test
will
> speak for itself. The second verify fails.=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
> interface StubMe=20
>=20
> {=20
>=20
> string Name { get; }=20
>=20
> }=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
> [Test]=20
>=20
> public void MeaningfulName()=20
>=20
> {=20
>=20
> Mockery mock =3D new Mockery();=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
> StubMe me =3D (StubMe) mock.NewMock(typeof(StubMe));=20
>=20
> Stub.On(me).GetProperty("Name").Will(Return.Value("Tom"));=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Verify.That(me.Name, Is.EqualTo("Tom"));=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Stub.On(me).GetProperty("Name").Will(Return.Value("Bill"));=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Verify.That(me.Name, Is.EqualTo("Bill"));=20
>=20
> }
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server.=20
Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your
very
own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play:
http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
_______________________________________________
NMock-two-dev mailing list
NMo...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
|
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2005-09-20 13:50:50
|
That's expected behaviour. Stubs and expectations are matched in the
order that they are specified. The first stub that you specify will
match the invocation and the second will never be invoked because it
is masked by the first.
Instead, write a custom Action that returns one value the first time
it is invoked and another the second time it is invoked.
--Nat.
On 9/20/05, sco...@rk... <sco...@rk...> wrote:
> =20
> =20
>=20
> I have run across a potential problem with stubs. Hopefully the test will
> speak for itself. The second verify fails.=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
> interface StubMe=20
>=20
> {=20
>=20
> string Name { get; }=20
>=20
> }=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
> [Test]=20
>=20
> public void MeaningfulName()=20
>=20
> {=20
>=20
> Mockery mock =3D new Mockery();=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
> StubMe me =3D (StubMe) mock.NewMock(typeof(StubMe));=20
>=20
> Stub.On(me).GetProperty("Name").Will(Return.Value("Tom"));=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Verify.That(me.Name, Is.EqualTo("Tom"));=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Stub.On(me).GetProperty("Name").Will(Return.Value("Bill"));=20
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Verify.That(me.Name, Is.EqualTo("Bill"));=20
>=20
> }
|
|
From: <sco...@rk...> - 2005-09-20 13:24:40
|
I have run across a potential problem with stubs. Hopefully the test
will speak for itself. The second verify fails.
=20
interface StubMe=20
{
string Name { get; }
}
=20
[Test]
public void MeaningfulName()=20
{
Mockery mock =3D new Mockery();
=20
StubMe me =3D (StubMe) mock.NewMock(typeof(StubMe));
Stub.On(me).GetProperty("Name").Will(Return.Value("Tom"));
=20
Verify.That(me.Name, Is.EqualTo("Tom"));
=20
Stub.On(me).GetProperty("Name").Will(Return.Value("Bill"));
=20
Verify.That(me.Name, Is.EqualTo("Bill"));
}
|
9 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.