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

[Vincent M. <vm...@pi...>]

Ok. Here's use case:

I have in my code a call to queueConnection.close() (for example). I use
a Mock for QueueConnection. If I *don't* define either an expect*() or a
match*(), I get:

junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: mockQueueConnection: Unexpected
call: close()
Expected no methods
	at com.mockobjects.dynamic.Mock.invoke(Mock.java:95)
[...]

Which means to me that we have to define the behaviour for any method
called (and that there is no default behaviour assumed). Fine with me.
Then, I don't want to set an expectation on close() because this mock
setup is part of a general setup that I want to reuse across several
tests and some tests do call close(), some do not.

But there is no match() method. 

Basically I'd like to simply tell DynaMock that I don't care about this
close() method. ATM, I've tricked it, by using:

        mockQueueConnection.matchAndReturn("close", null);

But that seems like a hack (or even a DynaMock bug) to me.

Am I not thinking in the right direction?

Thanks
-Vincent

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Walnes [mailto:jo...@tr...]
> Sent: 15 May 2003 09:03
> To: Vincent Massol
> Cc: moc...@li...
> Subject: Re: [MO-java-dev] [New DynaMock] Why is there no match()
method?
> 
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>