RE: [MO-java-dev] Java Dynamic Mocks - going to Head?

[Tim M. <tim...@po...>]

No problems Nat - we have made some good progress, and things are pretty
much how you would expect them. Mostly like your diagram but a few things
haven't materialised as you drew them yet (I forget which, but it was
trivial).

I'm not going to be at XtC next week as I am in America for two weeks
(leaving this Sunday). If you are near Liverpool St. today (Thurs) give me a
call and drop by the e2x offices.

CallSequence has been completed - so no need to worry on that one. The last
big one is ANY_ARGS - it should be an object in its own right (we shouldn't
use Constraint[] in a CallMatch it should be a Contraints object with an
interface which AnyContraints can implement and just always return true ).

The callable interface may be ok - I'm divided on this one - we can discuss
it later.

As for the before/after idea - I like how the functional test proposes it.
It should be easy to implement too - just decorate an ExpectedCall with a
before field - when you call, make sure the before object wasCalled (may
need to add wasCalled to the Callable interface though).

Anyway - the current stuff is very usuable for most cases now, I'm really
enjoying using it.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Nat Pryce [mailto:nat...@b1...]
Sent: 16 April 2003 11:08
To: Tim Mackinnon; Mockobjects-Java-Dev
Subject: Re: [MO-java-dev] Java Dynamic Mocks - going to Head?


Sorry for being incomunicado for the last few days.  I haven't had a chance
to see the latest changes -- it seems next to impossible to get BT to
acknowledge that they can install a phone line to my boat let alone
broadband! I'd like the chance to meet up and check out / comment on the
latest updates.  Are you (Tim) going to be at XTC this week?  Perhaps we
could hammer out the CallSequence class.

> 2) The Callable interface has a "matches" method, this doesn't feel right
> for all callables, its required for CallBag to operate - others don't need
> it. This should be removed and implemented as a private decoration for
> CallBag.

For a CallSequence it will also need a "complete" method that returns true
if the Callable can be removed from the front of the sequence.  Personally,
I feel comfortable having these methods in the Callable interface, but if
the Decorator approach works that will be great.

> 3) Steve's exellent suggestion of having:
>
> Callable c1 = mock.expect("setContentType".....)
> Callable c2 = mock.expect("getWriter".....)
> c1.expectBefore(c2)
>
> has not yet been implemented. This should work quite easily, but the focus
> has been on UnorderdMock and OrderedMock.

In the new design, this would be accomplished by organising "setContentType"
and "getWriter" into a CallSequence and adding the call sequence to the
Mock.

CallCollection seq = mock.expectSequence();
seq.expectVoid( "setContentType", ... );
seq.expectAndReturn( "getWriter", ... );

The expectBefore method will be quite messy to implement in the current
design.  Since there is already a way to achieve the same effect, I'd
suggest not implementing expectBefore.




---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.467 / Virus Database: 266 - Release Date: 01/04/2003

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.467 / Virus Database: 266 - Release Date: 01/04/2003