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

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

Forwarded to the list as it may interest others too.
-Vincent

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Mackinnon [mailto:tim...@po...]
> Sent: 16 May 2003 01:36
> To: Vincent Massol
> Subject: RE: [MO-java-dev] [New DynaMock] Why is there no match()
method?
> 
> Now you are on to something!
> 
> For methods with no return type - do we want a mock type that doesn't
> care?
> (If there is a return type I think its dangerous to provide a default
> value
> as this smells of missing tests - and a lack of documentation via a
test.)
> -
> however void methods are interesting. Should you have to be specific?
> 
> I am warming to the idea of match(...) (its kind of an ignore() but
that
> introduces another name so match() seems good). If you did this in
setUp,
> then if you really care you put an expect in a test which would take
> precendence. I like this behaviour - I've seen this before, you
shouldn't
> get hosed for having defaults in a setUp method but can be more
precise
> when
> you want to.
> 
> You could add this vincent - its pretty straightforward. I would
suggest
> also augmenting the SimpleServletTest to show this - as its our
functional
> test at the moment.
> 
> Tim
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: moc...@li...
> > [mailto:moc...@li...]On Behalf
Of
> > Vincent Massol
> > Sent: 15 May 2003 09:45
> > To: 'Joe Walnes'
> > Cc: moc...@li...
> > Subject: RE: [MO-java-dev] [New DynaMock] Why is there no match()
> > method?
> >
> >
> > 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
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > 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