RE: [MO-java-dev] First batch of questions on new Dynamic Mock API

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent Massol [mailto:vm...@pi...]

> > > - what is now replacing the setupDefaultResult() method?
> > >   Ex: mockRequest.setupDefaultResult(String.class, null);
>
> Any answer for that?

Yes:  use matchAndReturn("methodName", C.isA(String.class), null)

> Does what? My questions is "simply what's the difference between
> expect*() and match*()"...
>
> > There is a
> > comment above these lines saying "// Set no expectations but answer a
> > value
> > for the specified method ".
>
> Yes, I have read this comment, hence my comment: " It seems to me that
> the verify() will trigger a check to verify that the expect*() calls did
> actually happen whereas this would not be checked for the match*()
> ones".
>
> My English may seem good but I don't think in the same way as you do
> guys so it may take me longer to understand something... please bear
> with me ;-)

This has been answered in a previous email which defines expect and match.

> I'll complement my question: Is expect*() considered deprecated now? But
> then, why is it in the example...

expect is Not deprecated, see the previous email

> ok, I think I get it now. A comment would be nice to explain this... Am
> I allowed to comment it?

I will admit that without more context it can be tricky - why not change the
1000 and 2000 numbers to constants that would express this without a
comment? Go on - try doing something to the Test that would make you happy
without a comment?

> I had looked at the code. Here it is:
>
> public class OrderedMock extends Mock {
>
> 	public OrderedMock(Class mockedClass) {
> 		this(mockedClass, mockNameFromClass(mockedClass));
> 	}
>
> 	public OrderedMock(Class mockedClass, String name) {
> 		super(new DefaultCallFactory(), new
> CallSequence(),mockedClass, name);
> 	}
>
> }
>
> It doesn't tell anything to me.... and then if you have the time to
> follow the code, it calls the following constructor from the Mock class:
>
> 	public Mock(CallFactory callFactory, CallableAddable
> callableAddable, Class mockedClass, String name) {
> 		this.name = name;
> [...]
>
> Still without any comment!
>
> I would need to browse and scan the full code to understand what it
> does...

Come on Vincent - you are a better programmer than that - what do you think
the method "mockNameFromClass(mockedClass)" does????? Especially when it
calls a method which when I hover over in my idea pops up a window that
says: "com....Mock(Class mockedClass, String name)"

This doesn't need a comment!!!!! That took all of 15 seconds. In fact less
as when choosing the constructor my IDE shows me the method signature for
both. HOWEVER - having written this, I could improve the variable name, to
nonDefaultName, which I have just done.

>
> > As the name of the Parameter, "name" implies, it gives the mock a non
> > default name.
>
> I mean I can see that. My question wasn't that. It was:
>
> > >   - What's the point of using the second parameter (i.e. "response")
> in:
> > >       new OrderedMock(HttpServletResponse.class, "response");
>
> I can't figure out why we need to use "response" in this test sample! It
> doesn't seem to be used anywhere. I mean if we want to show how to use
> the second parameter we should demonstrate an example where we need this
> second parameter and explain why...

Actually - I can improve that too, is "response that servlet writes to" a
better example of something you might want to do so that you would get a
better error description? Unfortunately its on the todo list to have a
little App that generates all error messages to the console so that we can
see them and understand the errors better.


> Thus, if I understand correctly, there will be 2 solution for sequence
> calls:
> - use a OrderedMock but then all calls are supposed to be in the same
> order as the order in which we define the match*() (or expect*()) calls.
> - use expectBefore() when you simply need to order 2 calls
>
> Is that correct?

Exactly! Others have proposed that with this primitive we can do some other
stuff but thats later.


I think we finally got to the bottom of the stuff now - and I hope this has
helped get a better description for your book.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 24/04/2003