From: <st...@m3...> - 2003-05-20 14:55:16
|
Our intention is that for some sort of call object there should be somethin= g like methodOne.exepectBefore(methodTwo) assertion. Our view was that most= of the time people would either care a lot or not at all about ordering, a= nd that we'd add this mechanism for special cases like yours. S. > Just a first observation on the 0.9 changes. It now appears that a mock= =20 > must be order or not across all methods. I tend to setup my mocks to be= =20 > ordered or not on an individual method basis. I only order methods when= =20 > the semantics explicitly require it. But when a mock method(s) needs to= =20 > be ordered and counted, most other methods can be of the match*() type=20 > (ie, any number of calls in any order). >=20 > Is such a setup still possible now that a mock cannot be given a Call? >=20 > I like the idea of not requiring the use of CallSequence, but not the=20 > prevention of its use when necessary. >=20 > Again, I'll covert over to 0.9 and get some concrete experience and=20 > report back and update the twiki. |