RE: [MO-java-dev] Should CallSequence be called with new DynaMocks?

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

yes. The experience of the team I worked with was that the old way was
highly refactored but unintuitive.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: moc...@li...
> [mailto:moc...@li...]On Behalf Of
> Vincent Massol
> Sent: 14 May 2003 12:41
> To: 'Mockobjects-Java-Dev'
> Subject: [MO-java-dev] Should CallSequence be called with new DynaMocks?
>
>
> Hi,
>
> With the old dyna mocks, I had:
>
> CallSequence sequence1 = new CallSequence();
> sequence1.expectReturn(new Constraint[] {C.eq(1)}, "FIRSTNAME");
> sequence1.expectReturn(new Constraint[] {C.eq(2)}, "LASTNAME");
> mockResultSetMetaData.expect("getColumnName", sequence1);
>
> I guess, the new canonical way of writing this is simply:
>
> mockResultSetMetaData.expectAndReturn("getColumnName", C.eq(1),
>     "FIRSTNAME");
> mockResultSetMetaData.expectAndReturn("getColumnName", C.eq(2),
>     "LASTNAME");
>
> Is this correct? (It works here but I'd like to make sure I'm doing it
> correctly :-)).
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara
> The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise solutions
> www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
> Moc...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev
>
> ---
> Incoming 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
>
---
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