Re: [Nmock-general] Strict by default?

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

Your mileage may vary. My instincts are more "discpline and bondage" 
than some of the others, so I would have preferred to have Strict as the 
default setting, but others prefer a little slack. Don't forget, you can 
also check that a method is /not/ called, if that's what you're 
interested in.

S.

Nick Robinson wrote:
> I am sure there is a really good reason for the Strict property being
> defaulted to false, but what do people think about this defaulting to
> true? Through human error, we have missed things when building the
> mocks.  I have been sat with a colleague today, and we expected the
> abscence of a method call in the Expect calls, to result in a failure
> when the method is actually called.  So we looked at it and so the
> Strict property, set it to true and ran.  Hey presto, we found that
> not only was the problem highlighted by setting this to true, but we
> had overlooked a call to a certain method in a certain way.  Setting
> it to true picks this up, because it shows we didnt do a
> Mock.ExpectXXX().
> 
> I can see that maybe having to put all calls in, would couple the
> code to the behaviour of the class that uses the mock.  But I think
> thats what we are doing anyway, and it reads better by making the
> mock behaviour more explicit in the test cases, by having to define
> the calls.  If strict is false, then ignore seems to be redundant?
> 
> Just wondered what peoples thoughts are.