RE: [MO-java-dev] [DynaMock] Very difficult to factorize matches...

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

Ok, I've found the error. For those interested it has to do with unit
testing EJB code. Very often the EJB Homes are cached in static
variables. As I was mocking the EJB Home using the DynaMock this dyna
mock instance was saved as a static variable and thus the same
expectations were carried across different tests making the test fail
for some tests....

Statics are evil! :-)

-Vincent

> -----Original Message-----
> From: moc...@li...
> [mailto:moc...@li...] On Behalf Of
> Vincent Massol
> Sent: 18 May 2003 09:37
> To: 'Mockobjects-Java-Dev'
> Subject: RE: [MO-java-dev] [DynaMock] Very difficult to factorize
> matches...
> 
> After looking at the source code, it seems the behavior is correctly
> implemented. There must be some other error in my test... debugging
> now...
> 
> Thanks and sorry for the false alarm :-)
> -Vincent
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: moc...@li...
> > [mailto:moc...@li...] On Behalf
Of
> > Vincent Massol
> > Sent: 18 May 2003 08:59
> > To: 'Mockobjects-Java-Dev'
> > Subject: [MO-java-dev] [DynaMock] Very difficult to factorize
> matches...
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > It is currently very difficult to write common setUp using the new
> Dyna
> > Mock API (it was easy with the previous DynaMock API). The main
reason
> > is that you cannot write something like that:
> >
> > public void setUp()
> > {
> >     mock.matchAndReturn("create", C.ANY_ARGS, whatever);
> > }
> >
> > public void test1()
> > {
> > [...]
> > }
> >
> > public void test2()
> > {
> > [...]
> > }
> >
> > public void testException()
> > {
> >     mock.expectAndThrow("create", C.ANY_ARGS,
> >         new CreateException("error"));
> > [...]
> > }
> >
> > The testException() test will fail with:
> >
> > junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: mockOrderLocalHome:
> create(<ANY>)
> > was expected but not called
> >
> > I think that it would be a normal behavior that expectations
override
> > matches.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: If flattening out C++ or Java
> > code to make your application fit in a relational database is
painful,
> > don't do it! Check out ObjectStore. Now part of Progress Software.
> > http://www.objectstore.net/sourceforge
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
> > Moc...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: If flattening out C++ or Java
> code to make your application fit in a relational database is painful,
> don't do it! Check out ObjectStore. Now part of Progress Software.
> http://www.objectstore.net/sourceforge
> _______________________________________________
> Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
> Moc...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev