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

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

This still feels like the wrong solution. We went round this loop a  
while ago and it just didn't work.

You might also consider having more than one test case (they don't  
have to be one-to-one with classes) to manage different combinations.

S.

On 11 Sep 2007, at 23:50, rdr...@ar... wrote:
>  That would be a bahavior which would fix my "problem".
>
> Maybe enable a flag in the mockery which defines the "search order"  
> for the expectations?
>
> I would find this behavior much more logical then the other way  
> around. Without it i have no way to override something i setup once  
> without resulting to "trickery" (e.g. defining something that i  
> consider a stub to be an expect.once so i can "remove" it with the  
> exact call)
>
> So instead of having my generic setup which creates everything  
> thats not important for my test "outside" the test function, and  
> only setting one expectation i am actually currently testing inside  
> of my test.  And usually this leads to a buch of helper setup  
> functions, which usually only differ in one line, and its not  
> trivial to refactor the other N lines out... Since the other n-1  
> functions would all differ in one different line...
>
> Also i want to avoid and "logic" in my tests/setups... so a  
> function with a flag to skip one of those lines also leaves a bad  
> feeling...
>
> Anyway... short conclusion: 2 Thumbs up for a flag that defines the  
> search direction ;)

Steve Freeman
Winner of the Agile Alliance Gordon Pask award 2006

http://www.m3p.co.uk

M3P Limited.
Registered office. 2 Church Street, Burnham, Bucks, SL1 7HZ.
Company registered in England & Wales. Number 03689627