mockobjects-java-users

[MO-java-users] CommonMockPreparedStatement is using ExpectationSet:no guaranteed iteration order

[<ric...@vo...>]

Hi all,

We're using mockobjects heavily for our unit tests.

Currently we're testing a sql-update with PreparedStatement.

I noticed that CommonMockPreparedStatement is using ExpectationSet, which is
using HashSet for internal storage. Since HashSet doesn't have a guaranteed
iteration order, it is in my opinion not suitable for PreparedStatement.
CommonMockPreparedStatement should use ExpectationList instead, so the order
is guaranteed (which is very important in a PreparedStatement...)

Richard.

Re: [MO-java-users] CommonMockPreparedStatement is using ExpectationSet:no guaranteed iteration order

[Steve F. <st...@m3...>]

You may well be right. Anyone think the opposite?

b.t.w. I'd love to hear more about your experiences.

In the meantime, you might also want to take a look at the new dynamic 
mock stuff in the library.

S.

ric...@vo... wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> We're using mockobjects heavily for our unit tests.
> 
> Currently we're testing a sql-update with PreparedStatement.
> 
> I noticed that CommonMockPreparedStatement is using ExpectationSet, which is
> using HashSet for internal storage. Since HashSet doesn't have a guaranteed
> iteration order, it is in my opinion not suitable for PreparedStatement.
> CommonMockPreparedStatement should use ExpectationList instead, so the order
> is guaranteed (which is very important in a PreparedStatement...)
> 
> Richard.
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Mockobjects-java-users mailing list
> Moc...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-users

Re: [MO-java-users] CommonMockPreparedStatement is using ExpectationSet:no guaranteed iteration order

[Jeff M. <je...@mk...>]

I can't see quite what the issue is. Which ExpectationSet are we talking 
about? The expected parameters are being stored as key value pairs so

setObject(1,"Stuff");
setObject(2,"More Stuff");

is the same as

setObject(2,"More Stuff") ;
setObject(1,"Stuff");

Are we talking about

    public void setObject(int param, Object anObject, int aTargetSQLType)

which should maybe be calling

setObject(param, new MapEntry(anObject, aTargetSQLType);

but the order is still not important, it's the combintion of index, 
object, type which counts.




ric...@vo... wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>We're using mockobjects heavily for our unit tests.
>
>Currently we're testing a sql-update with PreparedStatement.
>
>I noticed that CommonMockPreparedStatement is using ExpectationSet, which is
>using HashSet for internal storage. Since HashSet doesn't have a guaranteed
>iteration order, it is in my opinion not suitable for PreparedStatement.
>CommonMockPreparedStatement should use ExpectationList instead, so the order
>is guaranteed (which is very important in a PreparedStatement...)
>
>Richard.
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
>Welcome to geek heaven.
>http://thinkgeek.com/sf
>_______________________________________________
>Mockobjects-java-users mailing list
>Moc...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-users
>  
>

Re: [MO-java-users] CommonMockPreparedStatement is using ExpectationSet:no guaranteed iteration order

[Olaf K. <ok...@ab...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jeff Martin wrote:
| I can't see quite what the issue is. Which ExpectationSet are we
talking
| about? The expected parameters are being stored as key value pairs so
|
| setObject(1,"Stuff");
| setObject(2,"More Stuff");
|
| is the same as
|
| setObject(2,"More Stuff") ;
| setObject(1,"Stuff");

what about:

addExpectedSetParameter(1, "firstpass")
addExpectedSetParameter(2, "firstpass")
addExpectedSetParameter(1, "secondpass")
addExpectedSetParameter(2, "secondpass")
setExpectedExecuteCalls(2)
...

this is also passed by

setParameter(1,"secondpass");
setParameter(2,"firstpass");
execute();
setParameter(1,"firstpass");
setParameter(2,"secondpass");
execute();

I personally can *well* live with this, as it allows to split
expectations between setUp and test without much hassle.
In my eyes there's no need to change (would probably break my tests :-)

Best,

Olaf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+X2Nc7/xtFKqdCzURAgGZAJ0f3zXH2E3RXuLTFgIemuvNk0cUsQCgmfkK
3s+PobDWf/kYS2yLsIuyjl4=
=eDCv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----