Re: [NMock2-Dev] Feature Request: "Stub" should have alower prioritythen "Expect"

SourceForge Headquarters 1320 Columbia Street Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

JMock used to check expectations in reverse order so you could set up
some default expectations (stubs usually) and then override them in
individual tests.  However, it was so confusing to users that we
removed the feature and just check for expectation matches in the
order that they are defined.

We found that tests were far more readable if set-up was factored out
into well-named methods called at the start of tests as appropriate
than to define expectations in the SetUp method.

--Nat

On 11/09/2007, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote:
> It's not a matter of priority, the design philosophy is such that NMock i=
s expecting either a Stub or an Expectation, but not both.  Stub is just an=
other expectation internally, so if it is first in the list it will match a=
ll comers.
>
> I could see having an explicit Expect.Once.On(foo).ReplacingExistingExpec=
tations.SetProperty("Id");
>
> Which could find and clear all the existing expectations and replace it f=
or that test case; however, I don't think I'd want to add in an implicit 'o=
verride' behavior between expectations.
>
> That's my opinion of course,  if anyone else wants to chime in on this, p=
lease do.
>
> Nat, if you see this can you comment about the original nmock behavior fo=
r this case,  were you able to set up a default and then override it for sp=
ecific tests?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmock-two-dev-b=
ou...@li...] On Behalf Of Heiko Hatzfeld
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 9:07 AM
> To: NMock2 Development Discussion
> Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Feature Request: "Stub" should have alower prio=
ritythen "Expect"
>
> Hello...
>
> Lets ignore the more complicated event code for a second, and get to the =
"real problem" 1st...
>
> IDbObject foo =3D _mocks.NewMock<IDbObject>();
> Stub.On(foo).SetProperty("Id");
> Expect.Once.On(foo).SetProperty("Id");
> foo.Id =3D 123;
> _mocks.Verify.......;
>
> Say i have an Interface I want to mock. I know during my tests of another=
 class, there will be a buch of (generally unimportant)
> method calls that must be "stub"ed so the test in general can run...
>
> But the stubs are not important, they just need to be there..
> Example i supply a ILog mock which only has a method "Log"
>
> Now in most tests i dont care what will be logged... But on some i need t=
o make sure the right message is passed into the logger...
>
> Now i need to override the Log stub and supply an expect.once with a cert=
ain message... now the logger interface might be simple... But if you do th=
e same to a fairly complex view, then you need to stub all events etc so th=
e test can work.
>
> So back to the logger... My expection wont be fullfilled if i have define=
d a stub before the expection. the stub definition will swallow all calls t=
o Log() and the expection will never catch the "crutial" Log("SH..!!! bette=
r call someone NOW!")
>
> The exections and stubs have not been setup within an
> using (mocks.Ordered)
> {}
>
> block, so i think the expections should have a higher priority priority t=
hen the stubs... After all there is a way to define a strict order.
>
> I can post a full version of my event code if that is still requiered. Bu=
t I dont want to go into a to much detail, since I see the problem as a mor=
e general one. I do have a workaround that works with my event code, but i =
think its a hack ;)
>
>
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > Datum: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:58:06 -0500
> > Von: "Steve Mitcham" <Ste...@ty...>
> > An: "NMock2 Development Discussion" <nmo...@li...=
t>
> > Betreff: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Feature Request: "Stub" should have a lower p=
rioritythen "Expect"
>
> > Can you give a more complete example of what you are trying to accompli=
sh?
> >  In your sample, you could use Expect.AtLeastOnce as the expectation to
> > achieve the same effect.
> >
> > I'm also not following your event code example. It appears that you are
> > only exercising the mocked view and nothing of a controller class is ap=
parent
> > in your sample.  You need to give a better example here as well for me =
to
> > determine what it is you are trying to accomplish.
> >
> > I will say that in the current code drop there is some new event handli=
ng
> > code that may suit your needs, so you can write the following (the samp=
le
> > is from the acceptance test)
> >
> >                       listenerMessage =3D null;
> >                       Mockery mocks =3D new Mockery();
> >                       Announcer announcer =3D (Announcer) mocks.NewMock=
(typeof(Announcer));
> >
> >                       Expect.Once.On(announcer).EventAdd("Listeners", I=
s.Anything);
> >
> >                       announcer.Listeners +=3D new Listener(DummyListen=
er);
> >
> >                       Fire.Event("Listeners").On(announcer).With("Test =
Message");
> >
> > This might help to serve your purpose.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nmo...@li...
> > [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Heiko=
 Hatzfeld
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 6:09 AM
> > To: nmo...@li...
> > Subject: [NMock2-Dev] Feature Request: "Stub" should have a lower
> > prioritythen "Expect"
> >
> > Hello...
> >
> > This is my first post and I already got some complains.. I know its a
> > great start, but here we go...
> >
> > Giving this code:
> >
> >
> >             IDbObject foo =3D _mocks.NewMock<IDbObject>();
> >             Stub.On(foo).SetProperty("Id");
> >             Expect.Once.On(foo).SetProperty("Id");
> >             foo.Id =3D 123;
> >             _mocks.Verify.......;
> >
> > It will generate an exception. The reason is that the above code will n=
ot
> > satisfy my expection, since the stub which was defined 1st, will catch =
the
> > assignment and so the expection will never be reached.
> >
> > I think that an expection is much more important then a stub (Which is
> > kinda a "Fallback" only).
> >
> > For example... I want to test a controller for a view, and Verify that =
the
> > events are propperly setup and processed...
> >
> > I cannot create an implicit setup for the view (which creates the view =
and
> > stubs all events), and then attach a real expection onto the view, that
> > will allow me to sneak a mockEvent in, so i can fire it from the outsid=
e, and
> > verify that the controler does its work.
> >
> > I currently need to declare an implicit setup, which defines expections=
,
> > since those can be removed by adding a "fake" Handler on the Mock e.g.:
> >
> > //Inside CreateViewAndSetupBasicEvents Function
> > Expect.Once.On(mockedView).EventAdd("Save", Is.Anything);
> >
> > //Inside my "real" test function...
> > mockedView.Save +=3D null;
> > Expect.Once.On(mockedView).EventAdd("Save", Is.Anything)
> >       .Will(MockEvent.Hookup(mockevent));
> > mockEvent.Raise();
> >
> >
> > Hope this makes sense....
> >
> > I know i could "fix" it, by creating the view 1st and then adding the
> > expections, and THEN finally adding all the stubs... But i kinda got at=
tached
> > to my setup functions so i can create and setup a basic mock with one
> > call... Without that I would have to move the creation of the mock arou=
nd, and I
> > feel like i am "loosing" some clarity in my test, if I move to much int=
o
> > the "general" setup method.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
> > Ideal f=FCr Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
--
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > _______________________________________________
> > NMock-two-dev mailing list
> > NMo...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
--
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > _______________________________________________
> > NMock-two-dev mailing list
> > NMo...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
>
> --
> Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten
> Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> NMock-two-dev mailing list
> NMo...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> NMock-two-dev mailing list
> NMo...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev
>