Re: [MO-java-dev] [dynamic] Question about MethodMap.verify()

[Steve F. <st...@m3...>]

If we're going this route, then we should make MockCall a Verifiable and 
verify everything, even if it doesn't do anything.

I'm concerned about the duplication of overloaded methods between Mock 
and CallSequence. It feels like we haven't teased out all the concepts. 
One solution may be to make them both derive from some kind of template 
class. I'm not sure that Mock should extend Assert, it's usually the 
test case that does that.

I've done some tweaking and I'll rename dynamic.P to C for consistency, 
should it be in the constraint package?

S.

Barry Kaplan wrote:
> Nat Pryce wrote:
> 
>> If you use decorators around MockCall (e.g. CallSequence or a CallCount)
>> you have to explcitly verify those objects yourself.
>>
>> Hmm... perhaps the Mock class should test to see if the MockCall is
>> Verifiable and then automatically verify it if it is.  What do people
>> think?