Re: [NMock2-Dev] Custom Matchers tutorial

[Nat P. <nat...@gm...>]

The latter.  In the final example you show the use of "new" in an
expectation.  We've tried to make that be considered bad style in
jMock and always show using a factory function so that tests are
expressive.  It's not always caught on but more people use factory
functions than not.

--Nat.

On 3/2/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote:
> On 3/2/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote:
>
> > Hi.  Sorry I jumped the gun a bit here.  The tutorials on the site are
> fine.
> >
> > One suggestion: the tutorial should describe the idiom of creating
> > factory methods for creating actions and matchers.  Yes, you can do
> > ...Will(new BlahBlahBlahAction()) but doing that makes tests hard to
> > read. The whole point of  jMock and NMock2 is to provide a embedded
> > domain-specific language that can be seamlessly extended by users, and
> > this should be demonstrated at every opportunity in the tutorials and
> > documentation.  The end result -- clear tests/specifications -- is
> > really worth it.
> >
>
> Not 100% sure what you mean here -- do you not like the part where we
> explain how the syntactic sugar used earlier corresponds to new BlahBlah(=
),
> or would you like something added suggesting that if you make your own
> custom matchers, you should also create factory methods for them?
>
> Cheers,
> Mike.
>