Re: [jmock-dev] RE: [Nmock-general] Strict vs Lenient mode for mock objects

[Nat P. <nat...@b1...>]

Here's what we are envisaging.

A Mock* has a set of invocation mockers and a default stub that is used to
provide behaviour for an invocation that doesn't match against any
invocation mocker.

By default the default stub signals a test failure.

The user will be able to set the default stub to change the default
behaviour of the mock.

If they change it to a DefaultResultStub then they will get a lenient mode.
They can set up the DefaultResultStub to handle their own classes and share
a single DefaultResultStub among multiple mock objects so that they all have
the same default behaviour.

Code would look like:

public void setUp() {
    DefaultResultStub defaults = new DefaultResultStub();
    defaults.addDefaultResult( Date.class, new Date(-1L) );
    defaults.addDefaultResult( Point.class, new Point(0,0) );

    mock = new Mock( MockedInterface.class );
    mock.setDefaultStub( defaults );
}

What do people think?

--------
* Actually the InvocationDispatcher inside the mock, but that's an
implementation detail.

_______________________
Dr. Nathaniel Pryce
B13media Ltd.
http://www.b13media.com
+44 (0)7712 526 661

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Robinson" <nic...@ya...>
To: "Steve Freeman" <st...@m3...>; "JMock Dev"
<jmo...@li...>
Cc: <nmo...@li...>
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 7:38 AM
Subject: [jmock-dev] RE: [Nmock-general] Strict vs Lenient mode for mock
objects


> I personally can see the benefit of the lenient mode, but IMO it should
have
> to be "switched on", and be in switched off mode by default.  This is
> similar to my comments about the Strict property.  However, if there was
> documentation with NMock, which was accompanied with a few use scenarios
> (showing the use of Strict), such problems I witnessed may not have
> happened.
>
> Thanks,
>
> nick.robinson
> site : www.fromconcept.co.uk
> blog : www.fromconcept.co.uk/weblog.aspx
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nmo...@li...
> > [mailto:nmo...@li...]On Behalf Of Steve
> > Freeman
> > Sent: 07 January 2004 23:13
> > To: JMock Dev
> > Cc: nmo...@li...
> > Subject: [Nmock-general] Strict vs Lenient mode for mock objects
> >
> >
> > Hello mockistas.  We (Steve & Nat) have just spent a semi-productive
> > session designing an API for "lenient mode" mock objects.  In lenient
> > mode a mock will return default values from unexpected invocations
> > instead of throwing a test failure.
> >
> > But then we decided that it was a bad idea and deleted all the code.
> >
> > Lenient mode can mask errors and make errors fail slow instead of fast.
> > In fact, Nick Robinson has just complained about this on the nmock list.
> > There is some mechanism underneath to support default values for people
> > who want to pop in their own default stub, but this is not yet exposed
> > properly.
> >
> > What do people think about lenient mode?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Nat & Steve.
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software.
> > Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering
> > advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms.
> > Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > Nmock-general mailing list
> > Nmo...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-general
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> jmock-dev mailing list
> jmo...@li...
> http://lists.codehaus.org/mailman/listinfo/jmock-dev