Re: [Nmock-general] MethodSignature and friends

[Levi K. <LKh...@th...>]

Hi Owen,

Here's an example, try adding this to MockTest class:

        [Test]
        public void CallOverloadedMethodsInDifferentOrder()
        {
                mock.Expect("myMethod", "foo");
                mock.Expect("myMethod", 1);
                mock.Invoke("myMethod", 1);
                mock.Invoke("myMethod", "foo");
                mock.Verify();
        }

This test fails with the latest code from CVS even though myMethod(string) =

and myMethod(int) are deferent overloads and IMO shouldn't be subjected to =

the same call sequence at least logically.

Regards,
 - Levi




Owen Rogers/Canada/ThoughtWorks@THOUGHTWORKS
11/12/2004 06:38 AM

To
Levi Khatskevitch <LKh...@th...>@THOUGHTWORKS=5FCOM
cc
Jim Arnold <JA...@th...>, nmo...@li...
Subject
Re: [Nmock-general] MethodSignature and friends







> Recently I was thinking about resolving methods to the first expectation =

in the call sequence where argument types match. This preserves the=20
flexibility but also supports overloading in a more consistent way. For=20
example:=20

AFAIK, this is how nmock is supposed to work.  what problems are you=20
experiencing when you try to do this?=20
cheers,=20
owen.=20

---
R. Owen Rogers
ThoughtWorks Technologies (India) Pvt Ltd.

ThoughtWorks - Deliver with passion!

ThoughtWorks is always looking for talented people who are passionate=20
about technology.  To find out more about a career at ThoughtWorks go to=20
http://www.thoughtworks.com/career/.=20



Levi Khatskevitch <LKh...@th...>=20
Sent by: nmo...@li...=20
01/11/2004 21:47=20
       =20
        To:        Jim Arnold <JA...@th...>=20
        cc:        nmo...@li..., (bcc: Owen=20
Rogers/Canada/ThoughtWorks)=20
        Subject:        Re: [Nmock-general] MethodSignature and friends




I had the same idea a while ago, but how would you handle argument=20
constraints like NotNull() that do not specify the argument type? Losing=20
them will make expectations more verbose but on the other hand requiring=20
too precise expectations often results in unit tests that follow real code =

too closely - a common problem with interaction base testing that I've=20
seen.=20

Recently I was thinking about resolving methods to the first expectation=20
in the call sequence where argument types match. This preserves the=20
flexibility but also supports overloading in a more consistent way. For=20
example:=20

mock.Expect("Foo", new IsAnything()); // expect either overload=20
mock.Expect("Foo", (int)1); // expect Foo(int) overload=20
mock.Expect("Foo", (double)1.2); // expect Foo(double) overload=20

mock.Invoke("Foo", 2); // ok, resolved to the first expectation=20
mock.Invoke("Foo", 1.0); // fail, resolves to the third expectation and=20
thus should be 1.2=20

Any thoughts on this?=20

Regards,=20
- Levi=20


Jim Arnold <JA...@th...>=20
Sent by: nmo...@li...=20
11/01/2004 08:41 AM=20


To
nmo...@li...=20
cc

Subject
[Nmock-general] MethodSignature and friends










The method resolution in NMock is really starting to annoy me :-)  It=20
works for simple cases (find a method named "Foo" with a return type of=20
"Bar"), but complex scenarios with overloads  and indexed properties are=20
still buggy.  The fundamental problem is that the user is not forced to=20
specify the attributes necessary to find a method.  SetupResult() can just =

take a method name and a return value, which is really not enough to=20
resolve overloaded properties.=20
=20
We should just get rid of the whole MethodSignature thing and start using=20
real MethodInfos and PropertyInfos instead.  It might make the public API=20
slightly more complex, but would close a whole class of bugs.=20
=20
Can I get a +/- 1 from anybody?=20
=20
Jim=20
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email=20
is sponsored by: Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE=20
LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux.=20
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad=5FidU88&alloc=5Fid=12065&op=3Dclick=20
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Nmock-ge=
neral mailing list=20
Nmo...@li...=20
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-general=20