Re: [Dotnetmock-developer] RFE_1001778 - Please review

[Griffin C. <gri...@ma...>]

Choy,


On Jan 1, 2005, at 11:49 PM, Choy Rim wrote:

> Cool. Actually I wanted to do a few more things before you released=20
> it. I realized it=92d be cool to have AndRequire() work the same as=20
> other predicates=A0 where null and other non-IPredicate=92s translate =
to=20
> IsAnything and IsEqual respectively. But we can put that in the next=20=

> point release =85 when I get that expectation thread going.
>

No problem, since I didn't release last night :)  When do you think you=20=

could implement this?

> =46rom some of the commit comments, it looks like I=92ve violated some =
of=20
> your coding standards. Can you give me some guidance on exactly what=20=

> they are? I just followed the Spring.NET coding standards but am=20
> willing to adopt whatever is the going convention. It looks like you=20=

> prefer
>
> l=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 No spaces between method definitions.
>
> l=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 All fields on the top of a class definition.
>
> l=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Sometimes methods as capitalized and sometimes not =85
>
> l=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Space at the beginning and end of a method argument =
list.

You go most everything right.  I just added a few things:
1. All fields defined at top of class, with an _ prefix.
2. Public methods are Pascal cases, SomeMethod, and private & protected=20=

methods are Camel Case, someMethod.
3. XML Comments for the public members.  I turned this on for the=20
VS.NET projects, so the compiler will tell us when some are missing.

that's pretty much it.  Not a big problem.

> Well, from the commit emails that=92s what I gather. I=92ll write up a=20=

> little doc on it, put it in CVS.
>

I actually have a doc on it.  I will put it up on SF tonight, in the=20
documents section.

> So branch RFE_1001778 has been retired. RFE 1001778 has been closed.=20=

> Now we still need a header/license =85 :P

I think I will write a little ruby script to take care of this ;)  =20
Been meaning to take that language for a spin.

-Griffin


> =A0
>
> --Choy
>
> =A0
>
> =A0
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Griffin Caprio [mailto:gri...@ma...]
> Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 6:00 PM
> To: Choy Rim
> Cc: dot...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Dotnetmock-developer] RFE_1001778 - Please review
>
> =A0
>
> Choy,
>
>  Looks good! Great job.
>
>  I merged your branch into the head today. So, I should be packaging=20=

> it up for release today!
>
>  - Griffin
>  On Dec 29, 2004, at 6:22 PM, Choy Rim wrote:
>
> Griffin,
>
>  =A0
>
>  I=92ve coded the support for expectations that modify ref/out=20
> parameters in branch RFE_1001778. The changes are ready for your=20
> review. I=92m itching to do a bit more refactoring, like eliminating =
the=20
> redundancies between DynamicMockTests and DynamicOrderedMockTests. But=20=

> most of the refactorings I have in mind can wait until I merge this=20
> branch with the trunk.
>
>  =A0
>
>  I=92ve added two unit tests to DynamicMockTests (unit tests were also=20=

> added for the class generator code) which show how to use the feature.=20=

> I=92ll explain some of the basics here. Let=92s say we have a method =
that=20
> takes a ref parameter:
>
>  =A0
>
>  void Increment(ref int index);
>
>  =A0
>
>  We can specify our expectation like so:
>
>  =A0
>
>  mock.Expect(=93Increment=94,
>
>  new Assign(2).AndRequire(new IsEqual(1))
>
>  );
>
>  =A0
>
>  That expectation will check the predicate first, then assign 2 to the=20=

> ref parameter. Take a look and let me know what you think. When you=20
> bless it, I=92ll merge it into the trunk.
>
>  =A0
>
>  --Choy
>
>  =A0
>
>  p.s. I=92m still wondering about the license and the commit emails =85 =
:-P
>
>  =A0