RE: [Nmock-general] RE: NMock

[Paul B. <Pau...@vi...>]

Not entirely sure what you mean, but methods A-E are on the object I =
want to test, so I can't replace them.  And it's not that I want to set =
expectations for methods A-E, it's that they generate calls to my Mock =
object, which I have to account for when I verify method X later.

Example:

DynamicMock m =3D new DynamicMock(typeof(IMyInterface));
IMyInterface itf =3D (IMyInterface)m.MockInstance;

MyInterestingObject foo =3D new MyInterestingObject(itf);

// Set up for the real test.
foo.A();  // calls itf.helper();
foo.B();  // calls itf.helper();
foo.C();  // calls itf.helper();
foo.D();  // calls itf.helper();
foo.E();  // calls itf.helper();

// I'd like to clear all the expectation counters built up on itf at =
this point.

m.Expect("xHelper");
foo.X();  // calls itf.helper();
m.Verify();

If the helper counter isn't cleared, I'm expecting 1 call, and the mock =
knows of 6, which results in a test failure.  Obviously, in this case, =
it would be easy to handle this sample case, but as my tests get more =
and more complicated, it gets harder and harder.  As I mentioned, what =
I'm looking for is more of a convinence than anything else.  Thanks!  :)



-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Freeman [mailto:st...@m3...]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 2:53 PM
To: Paul Brousseau
Cc: Owen Rogers; nmo...@li...
Subject: Re: [Nmock-general] RE: NMock


Could you stub methods A..E, rather than setting expectations on them?

S

Paul Brousseau wrote:
> It's not so much a problem as a possible inconvinience at times.  I
> think my sample below didn't properly set up the situation.  Let's
> say that I have method X that I want to test, but to get to the right
> state, I have to call methods A, B, C, D, and E, each of which result
> in calls to the Mock object.  It would be easier for me to not have
> to worry about counting the various method calls in that setup stage.
> If I could wipe out my expectations, then I would only have to check
> the stuff that goes along with method X.  So there's nothing wrong
> with calling Verify multiple times, but I'd like not to have to think
> about verifying the results of methods A-E (say, because I've already
> verified that they work elsewhere).
>=20