RE: [Nmock-general] Mocking types with constructors

[Jim A. <JA...@th...>]

Yes, currently NMock allows you to mock classes with empty constructors.
You get back a subclass with a real class as its base.  What I'm proposing
is to remove the limitation on empty constructors by either *not* calling
any constructor on the base, or by allowing the user to pass parameters
into GetMockInstance() which would be used to construct the base with.

Jim



|---------+----------------------------------------->
|         |           "Mike Bresnahan"              |
|         |           <mbr...@vi...>           |
|         |           Sent by:                      |
|         |           nmo...@li...|
|         |           ceforge.net                   |
|         |                                         |
|         |                                         |
|         |           19/01/2004 16:33              |
|         |                                         |
|---------+----------------------------------------->
  >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                              |
  |       To:       <JA...@th...>                                                                                   |
  |       cc:       <nmo...@li...>                                                                        |
  |       Subject:  RE: [Nmock-general] Mocking types with constructors                                                          |
  >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|




I'm still confused.

Does the current Nmock allow classes to be mocked?

Wouldn't a mock of a class have a mock as a base as well?  Are you saying
that the mocked class would have the real class as its base?

Mike

P.S. A cc'ed list under the assumption that you forgot to.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Arnold [mailto:JA...@th...]
> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 4:11 AM
> To: mbr...@vi...
> Subject: RE: [Nmock-general] Mocking types with constructors
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The point is that sometimes the class you're mocking has
> non-virtual methods which the class under test needs to call
> (or perhaps you've used Ignore on some methods), and if you
> don't have a fully constructed base those methods can fail.
> It may not be a big deal, but I've run into it before and
> thought it was worth discussing.
>
> Jim




-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
Nmock-general mailing list
Nmo...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-general