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

[Mike M. <mg...@es...>]

Oops. Apparently tab-enter sends emails. What I meant was

[Test]
PresenterSetsMessage {
  Expect.Once.On(view).SetProperty("Message").To("Order saved");
  StubStuffOnView();
  presenter.DoSomething();
}

void StubStuffOnView() {
  Stub.On(view).SetProperty("Message");
  Stub.On(view).GetProperty("someProp");
  Stub.On(view).GetProperty("somethingElse");
}

Because a stub that isn't called won't fail your test, this kind of
arrangement works. If you don't do this, all your presenter tests will need
to expect or stub a whole different range of stuff and become quickly
unreadable.

Personally I've mostly stopped testing presenters -- tests thats essentially
say "presenter should copy data from view to business logic method" aren't
that useful, and my presenters tend to be pretty small.

Hope this helps.

Mike.

On 9/12/07, Mike Mason <mg...@es...> wrote:
>
> Also in NMock, you can set up your expectations first and then stub
> everything afterwards. So something like
>
> [Test]
> PresenterShouldSetImportantMessageOnView() {
>
>