Re: [NMock2-Dev] Changed matchers + modified documentation

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

In my experience, when you use tests as a specification of system
behaviour, *all* the names in the test need to clearly express the
intent of the test and document the roles that the named thing plays
in the test.  If the test is about what happens when you mock an
interface, that interface should be called IMockedInterface.  The test
isn't about kissing frogs.  If the domain was about kissing frogs,
IKissable would be fine, but we're writing a mock object library not a
fairy tale!

--Nat.

On 3/21/06, Mike Mason <mik...@gm...> wrote:
> On 3/20/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote:
>
> > So when writing documentation, please show the extension points being
> > used to extend the DSL syntax and avoid whimsical example code
> > ("kissable" and whatnot) in the tests.  It really will make support
> > much easier in the long run.
>
>
> I take your point about us wanting to promote good coding style and the
> readability of the DSL, but why are you unhappy with the "kissable" etc
> stuff? (I noticed you removed that from some code a while back, I guess y=
ou
> found some more recently).
>
> The reason I put the kissable stuff in there was that I was actually the
> existing tests hard to read - I didn't like stuff like "InterfaceToBeMock=
ed"
> much, I find concrete examples clearer. I guess this is personal preferen=
ce,
> though.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike.
>
>