Re: [MO-java-dev] DynaMock proxy toString issue

[chris c. <drc...@ya...>]

Hi Steve,
here is the failing test of the DynamicUtil

in DynamicUtilTest


	public void testProxyToString() throws Exception {
		Mock mockDummyInterface = new Mock(DummyInterface.class, "an example");
		DummyInterface proxyDummyInterface = (DummyInterface) 
mockDummyInterface.proxy();
		assertEquals("should get correct string", "an example", 
DynamicUtil.proxyToString(proxyDummyInterface));
		assertEquals("should get correct string for array", "[<an example>]", 
DynamicUtil.proxyToString(new DummyInterface[] { proxyDummyInterface }));

		List list = new ArrayList();
		list.add(proxyDummyInterface);
		assertEquals("should get correct string for list", "[an example]", 
DynamicUtil.proxyToString(list));
		class MyClass {
			DummyInterface aField;

			MyClass(DummyInterface aDummy) {
				aField = aDummy;
			}

			public String toString() {
				return "myClass contains:" + aField;
			}
		}

		MyClass myClass = new MyClass(proxyDummyInterface);
		assertEquals("should get string back from contained field", "myClass 
contains:", DynamicUtil.proxyToString(myClass));
	}

The first two asserts pass, the second two do not.

The other thing I would like to do is refactor the MockTest. I want to do 
this because I tried out my one line change to Mock and it made every 
single test fail. In trying to fix them I noticed that there is a lot of 
duplication in the test and that some small changes to the CallFactory 
interface would make the test a great deal simpler. For instance replacing 
this method in Mock

public void expect(String methodName, ConstraintMatcher args) {
	calls.addExpect(callFactory.createCallExpectation(callFactory.createCallSignature(methodName, 
 args, 		callFactory.createVoidStub())));
	}

with something like this:

public void expect(String methodName, ConstraintMatcher args) {
	calls.addExpect(callFactory.createCallExpectation(methodName, args));
}

and having changed the DefaultCallFactory to handle it would make it a lot 
simpler to setup the expectations in the MockTest.

Alternatively I would suggest not using mocks to test Mock, I don't think 
you need to. I think plain old fashioned exo-testing would cut it. This 
would have the advantage of providing examples of usage and decoupling the 
test from implementation, making it simpler to integrate with Nat's 
changes.

Chris