Re: [MO-java-dev] [New DynaMock] Why is there no match() method?

[Joe W. <jo...@tr...>]

That's right. There's no reason to use match if you're not trying to 
setup a return value. You can still use expect in the same way to setup 
return values which also have expectations on the method calls.

Vincent Massol wrote:

>Hi Joe,
>
>I thought the only difference between match*() and expect*() was that
>expected methods were setting expectations that were verified when you
>call the verify() method on the mock?
>
>Also, expectAndReturn() does also setup return values, right?
>
>Thanks
>-Vincent (Still confused by the difference between match*() and
>expect*() :-))
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Joe Walnes [mailto:jo...@tr...]
>>Sent: 14 May 2003 21:38
>>To: Vincent Massol; moc...@li...
>>Subject: Re: [MO-java-dev] [New DynaMock] Why is there no match()
>>    
>>
>method?
>  
>
>>Vincent Massol wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>There is an expect() method (replacing the old expectVoid()), but
>>>      
>>>
>there
>  
>
>>>is no match() method. Any reason?
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>The only use of match() is to setup return values - so it's not needed
>>for void methods.
>>
>>-joe
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>