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

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

That's what I thought,  thanks for the clarification, and I agree with =
the potential for confusion.

-----Original Message-----
From: nmo...@li... =
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Nat =
Pryce
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 2:32 PM
To: NMock2 Development Discussion
Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Feature Request: "Stub" should have =
alowerprioritythen "Expect"

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 is expecting either a Stub or an Expectation, but not both.  Stub =
is just another expectation internally, so if it is first in the list it =
will match all comers.
>
> I could see having an explicit =
Expect.Once.On(foo).ReplacingExistingExpectations.SetProperty("Id");
>
> Which could find and clear all the existing expectations and replace =
it for that test case; however, I don't think I'd want to add in an =
implicit 'override' behavior between expectations.
>
> That's my opinion of course,  if anyone else wants to chime in on =
this, please do.
>
> Nat, if you see this can you comment about the original nmock behavior =
for this case,  were you able to set up a default and then override it =
for specific tests?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nmo...@li... =
[mailto:nmo...@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 =
prioritythen "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 to 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 =
certain message... now the logger interface might be simple... But if =
you do the same to a fairly complex view, then you need to stub all =
events etc so the test can work.
>
> So back to the logger... My expection wont be fullfilled if i have =
defined a stub before the expection. the stub definition will swallow =
all calls to Log() and the expection will never catch the "crutial" =
Log("SH..!!! better 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 then 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. =
But I dont want to go into a to much detail, since I see the problem as =
a more 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...>
> > Betreff: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Feature Request: "Stub" should have a =
lower prioritythen "Expect"
>
> > Can you give a more complete example of what you are trying to =
accomplish?
> >  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 =
apparent
> > 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 =
handling
> > code that may suit your needs, so you can write the following (the =
sample
> > 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", Is.Anything);
> >
> >                       announcer.Listeners +=3D new =
Listener(DummyListener);
> >
> >                       =
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 not
> > 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 =
outside, 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 =
attached
> > 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 =
around, and I
> > feel like i am "loosing" some clarity in my test, if I move to much =
into
> > 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
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=

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