nmock-general

[Nmock-general] Using reflection on mock instances

[Johan A. <joh...@gm...>]

Hi,=20

If I have a mock of an interface and calling GetType on the mock
instance does not return a type that includes the properties and
methods from the interface. Is this not possible with nmock or am I
doing something wrong?

/Johan

[Nmock-general] NMock vs. DotNetMock

[<thi...@gm...>]

Hi guys,

sorry to push another NMock vs. X thread, but I'm really getting into
more advanced mocking topics so picking up the right tool (both from
features or from usability point of view) is interesting.

Does anyone has experience with DotNetMock ? (http://dotnetmock.sourceforge=
.net)

It seems quite close from NMock from an API point of view, and I've
read somewhere that it was a fork of NMock.

Any opinion ?

regards

Thibaut

[Nmock-general] How Do I Mock A C# Indexer?

[Castro, E. G. (F. S. Engr.) <ec...@hp...>]

I'm trying to mock a C# indexer and I can't figure out what the method
name should be. Help?

--
Edwin

RE: [Nmock-general] Inherited properties and DynamicMock (known bug?)

[John P. <Joh...@de...>]

Hi Thibaut,

This is actually the same problem I ran into that I mentioned in a =
recent list post (the issue is "NMO-44" on the jira.truemesh tracker, =
but doesn't seem to be in the sourceforge tracker).  I've got a fix for =
it that seems to work well, but it hasn't been incorporated into the =
official source yet.

If you're interested, I can send you the patch and you can compile your =
own version for the time being.

John.

-----Original Message-----
From: nmo...@li... =
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Thibaut =
Barr=E8re
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:29 AM
To: <nmo...@li...>
Subject: [Nmock-general] Inherited properties and DynamicMock (known =
bug?)

Hi,

I'm getting a NullReferenceException while calling SetupResult for an
inherited property (full testcase below) :
- is it a know issue ?
- which tracker should I use to open an issue for that, if not know =
already ?

I found a quick workaround which is to create a custom class
inheriting from DynamicMock, and override Invoke().


regards

Thibaut



Repro:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
public enum MyEnum
{
	MyValue
}

public interface IMyInterface
{
	MyEnum Enum { get; }
}

public interface IMyChildInterface : IMyInterface
{
}

[Test]
public void SetupResultWithInheritedProperty()
{
	DynamicMock mock =3D new DynamicMock(typeof(IMyChildInterface));
	mock.SetupResult("Enum",MyEnum.MyValue);
	IMyChildInterface instance =3D (IMyChildInterface)mock.MockInstance;
}
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D

Exception I get :

System.NullReferenceException : Object reference not set to an
instance of an object.
	at NMock.DynamicMock.checkReturnTypeIsValid(String methodName, Object
returnVal, MethodSignature signature)
	at NMock.DynamicMock.SetupResult(String methodName, Object returnVal,
Type[] argTypes)


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes
Want to be the first software developer in space?
Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ids93&alloc_id=16281&op=3Dick
_______________________________________________
Nmock-general mailing list
Nmo...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-general

[Nmock-general] Inherited properties and DynamicMock (known bug?)

[<thi...@gm...>]

Hi,

I'm getting a NullReferenceException while calling SetupResult for an
inherited property (full testcase below) :
- is it a know issue ?
- which tracker should I use to open an issue for that, if not know already=
 ?

I found a quick workaround which is to create a custom class
inheriting from DynamicMock, and override Invoke().


regards

Thibaut



Repro:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
public enum MyEnum
{
=09MyValue
}

public interface IMyInterface
{
=09MyEnum Enum { get; }
}

public interface IMyChildInterface : IMyInterface
{
}

[Test]
public void SetupResultWithInheritedProperty()
{
=09DynamicMock mock =3D new DynamicMock(typeof(IMyChildInterface));
=09mock.SetupResult("Enum",MyEnum.MyValue);
=09IMyChildInterface instance =3D (IMyChildInterface)mock.MockInstance;
}
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D

Exception I get :

System.NullReferenceException : Object reference not set to an
instance of an object.
=09at NMock.DynamicMock.checkReturnTypeIsValid(String methodName, Object
returnVal, MethodSignature signature)
=09at NMock.DynamicMock.SetupResult(String methodName, Object returnVal,
Type[] argTypes)

Re: [Nmock-general] Couple questions and suggestions

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

It's true that things have been very quiet for a while. At present, Nat=20=

is cooking up a very nice-looking rewrite based on our experiences with=20=

jMock (www.jmock.org). I don't have a .Net box at the moment, anyone=20
else want to volunteer to pick this one up?

S.

On 9 May 2005, at 15:41, John Price wrote:
> I just joined the list after I got an email response from Joe Walnes=20=

> telling me he=92s no longer involved in the NMock project.=A0 So the =
first=20
> thing I wanted to suggest is an update to the nmock.org website with=20=

> some more up-to-date contact info.=A0 My apologies if any of this has=20=

> been recently addressed, but a quick look through the archives didn=92t=20=

> reveal anything.
> =A0
> More generally, it=92s not really clear where the =93official=94 =
source for=20
> information on NMock is.=A0 Clicking on the =93Tracker=94 link on =
NMock.org=20
> takes you to one bug tracking system, while another set of issues are=20=

> tracked on SourceForge.=A0 In general, the only reference the =
NMock.org=20
> page makes to SourceForge is for downloading source or binaries.
> =A0
> Anyway, the reason I emailed Joe in the first place was that I ran=20
> into bug =93NMO-44=94 as tracked by the JIRA bug tracker (=93Using=20
> DynamicMock with inheriting interfaces throws NullReferenceException=94)=
=20
> and think that I=92ve got a fix for it (and a unit test to check for=20=

> it).=A0 How can I go about submitting my change back to the project =
for=20
> review?
> =A0

[Nmock-general] Couple questions and suggestions

[John P. <Joh...@de...>]

Hi everyone,

=20

I just joined the list after I got an email response from Joe Walnes
telling me he's no longer involved in the NMock project.  So the first
thing I wanted to suggest is an update to the nmock.org website with
some more up-to-date contact info.  My apologies if any of this has been
recently addressed, but a quick look through the archives didn't reveal
anything.

=20

More generally, it's not really clear where the "official" source for
information on NMock is.  Clicking on the "Tracker" link on NMock.org
takes you to one bug tracking system, while another set of issues are
tracked on SourceForge.  In general, the only reference the NMock.org
page makes to SourceForge is for downloading source or binaries.

=20

Anyway, the reason I emailed Joe in the first place was that I ran into
bug "NMO-44" as tracked by the JIRA bug tracker ("Using DynamicMock with
inheriting interfaces throws NullReferenceException") and think that
I've got a fix for it (and a unit test to check for it).  How can I go
about submitting my change back to the project for review?

=20

Thanks,

John.

RE: [Nmock-general] asynchronous testing

[Dean H. <dea...@Bo...>]

I would love to combine the two approaches.  On my current project, I am
doing the data access layer which should have no real multithreading
issues so I plan on using NMock and getting more familiar with the
differences between the two libraries.  I am not sure what NMock does
that mocklib doesn't do yet, but I intend to find out more about this.=20
Thanks,=20
dean

-----Original Message-----
From: nmo...@li...
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Steve
Freeman
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 4:33 PM
To: <nmo...@li...>
<nmo...@li...>
Subject: Re: [Nmock-general] asynchronous testing

What I'm hearing from your comments is that mocklib is intended for=20
different purposes from nmock, which is why it works better in those=20
circumstances. Is there value to be gained from trying to merge the two=20
approaches?

S.

On 25 Apr 2005, at 15:08, Dean Hiller wrote:
> Actually, the test is independent of the implementation(which allows=20
> easier refactoring).  The implementation may fork a thread or not, and

> the test will still pass.  The reason for forking occurs in many=20
> systems for many different reasons(disk i/o, talking to a slow legacy=20
> system through a stack, etc. etc.).  On my current project, I am=20
> trying to write tests where I put a request to an api, and the=20
> implementation drops it in a thread pool to go to my mocktransport.  I

> am doing subsystem testing.  We do test first here, but we do=20
> subsystem testing and integration testing.  We found subsystem testing

> gets more bang for the buck.  It also results in very well defined=20
> apis for the subsystems.  Lastly, it made refactoring of subsystems=20
> much easier without rewriting tests.  Of course, this is just my=20
> personal experience.   Some subsystems started out as just 3 classes,=20
> and others grew into 10,000 lines of code(but the api is still pretty=20
> small from the top(Low surface to volume ratio pattern).
> 	One other thing I liked about mocklib was I didn't have to learn

> about isAnything(), isEquals()...instead, it returns the parameters to

> you and you can do what you like with them.  Ie. I can do=20
> assertEquals(expected, param1) and assertSame(expected, param2)=20
> without learning more methods to use.  That would be kind of nice to=20
> have.
> Thanks,
> dean



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tell us your software development plans!
Take this survey and enter to win a one-year sub to SourceForge.net
Plus IDC's 2005 look-ahead and a copy of this survey
Click here to start!  http://www.idcswdc.com/cgi-bin/survey?id=3D105hix
_______________________________________________
Nmock-general mailing list
Nmo...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-general

--------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments hereto are =
for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, =
privileged and nondisclosable information. If the recipient of this =
e-mail is not the addressee, or a person responsible for delivering this =
e-mail to the addressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from =
reading, printing, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this =
e-mail or any attachments hereto in any way. If the recipient has =
received this e-mail in error, please send return e-mail immediately =
notifying us of your receipt of this e-mail and delete the e-mail from =
your inbox. Thank you.

Re: [Nmock-general] asynchronous testing

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

What I'm hearing from your comments is that mocklib is intended for 
different purposes from nmock, which is why it works better in those 
circumstances. Is there value to be gained from trying to merge the two 
approaches?

S.

On 25 Apr 2005, at 15:08, Dean Hiller wrote:
> Actually, the test is independent of the implementation(which allows 
> easier refactoring).  The implementation may fork a thread or not, and 
> the test will still pass.  The reason for forking occurs in many 
> systems for many different reasons(disk i/o, talking to a slow legacy 
> system through a stack, etc. etc.).  On my current project, I am 
> trying to write tests where I put a request to an api, and the 
> implementation drops it in a thread pool to go to my mocktransport.  I 
> am doing subsystem testing.  We do test first here, but we do 
> subsystem testing and integration testing.  We found subsystem testing 
> gets more bang for the buck.  It also results in very well defined 
> apis for the subsystems.  Lastly, it made refactoring of subsystems 
> much easier without rewriting tests.  Of course, this is just my 
> personal experience.   Some subsystems started out as just 3 classes, 
> and others grew into 10,000 lines of code(but the api is still pretty 
> small from the top(Low surface to volume ratio pattern).
> 	One other thing I liked about mocklib was I didn't have to learn 
> about isAnything(), isEquals()...instead, it returns the parameters to 
> you and you can do what you like with them.  Ie. I can do 
> assertEquals(expected, param1) and assertSame(expected, param2) 
> without learning more methods to use.  That would be kind of nice to 
> have.
> Thanks,
> dean

Re: [Nmock-general] Re: A mock log4net appender

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

On 27 Apr 2005, at 13:09, Thibaut Barr=E8re wrote:
> no answer so I assume it's too off-topic to be included in nmock ? (or
> maybe only interesting for my own needs!;)

not necessarily, just everyone's swamped...

This isn't my call, but I wouldn't be keen to see this included in the=20=

core package. There are a great many useful things out there that could=20=

be mocked out and we learned the hard way with the java mockobjects.com=20=

that this is a bottomless pit.

You also need to be careful about asserting within the TearDown, which=20=

should only be for cleaning up the fixture. In jUnit, at least,=20
exceptions are handled differently than from within the test itself.

S.

> 2005/4/25, Thibaut Barr=E8re <thi...@gm...>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wrote a mock log4net appender to ensure that my tests fails when
>> some errors are (sometimes silently) logged through log4net.
>>
>> Sample usage (just a starter):
>>
>> [SetUp]
>> public void SetUp()
>> {
>>         DOMConfigurator.Configure();
>>
>>         // create a mock log4net appender to verify that no error is=20=

>> outputed
>>         mockLog4netAppender =3D new MockLog4netAppender();
>>         // expect zero errors
>>         mockLog4netAppender.ExpectErrors(0);
>>         mockLog4netAppender.RegisterAppender();
>> }
>>
>> [TearDown]
>> public void TearDown()
>> {
>>         // verify that no error was outputed by log4net
>>         mockLog4netAppender.Verify();
>> }
>>
>> Do you think this idea could fit inside the nmock package ? I know
>> it's slightly OT, but if you think it can be useful or have other
>> remarks, please tell me.

[Nmock-general] Re: A mock log4net appender

[<thi...@gm...>]

Hi,

no answer so I assume it's too off-topic to be included in nmock ? (or
maybe only interesting for my own needs!;)

cheers

Thibaut

2005/4/25, Thibaut Barr=E8re <thi...@gm...>:
> Hi,
>=20
> I wrote a mock log4net appender to ensure that my tests fails when
> some errors are (sometimes silently) logged through log4net.
>=20
> Sample usage (just a starter):
>=20
> [SetUp]
> public void SetUp()
> {
>         DOMConfigurator.Configure();
>=20
>         // create a mock log4net appender to verify that no error is outp=
uted
>         mockLog4netAppender =3D new MockLog4netAppender();
>         // expect zero errors
>         mockLog4netAppender.ExpectErrors(0);
>         mockLog4netAppender.RegisterAppender();
> }
>=20
> [TearDown]
> public void TearDown()
> {
>         // verify that no error was outputed by log4net
>         mockLog4netAppender.Verify();
> }
>=20
> Do you think this idea could fit inside the nmock package ? I know
> it's slightly OT, but if you think it can be useful or have other
> remarks, please tell me.
>=20
> regards
>=20
> Thibaut Barr=E8re
> http://www.dotnetguru2.org/tbarrere
>

RE: [Nmock-general] asynchronous testing

[Dean H. <dea...@Bo...>]

Actually, the test is independent of the implementation(which allows =
easier refactoring).  The implementation may fork a thread or not, and =
the test will still pass.  The reason for forking occurs in many systems =
for many different reasons(disk i/o, talking to a slow legacy system =
through a stack, etc. etc.).  On my current project, I am trying to =
write tests where I put a request to an api, and the implementation =
drops it in a thread pool to go to my mocktransport.  I am doing =
subsystem testing.  We do test first here, but we do subsystem testing =
and integration testing.  We found subsystem testing gets more bang for =
the buck.  It also results in very well defined apis for the subsystems. =
 Lastly, it made refactoring of subsystems much easier without rewriting =
tests.  Of course, this is just my personal experience.   Some =
subsystems started out as just 3 classes, and others grew into 10,000 =
lines of code(but the api is still pretty small from the top(Low surface =
to volume ratio pattern).
	One other thing I liked about mocklib was I didn't have to learn about =
isAnything(), isEquals()...instead, it returns the parameters to you and =
you can do what you like with them.  Ie. I can do assertEquals(expected, =
param1) and assertSame(expected, param2) without learning more methods =
to use.  That would be kind of nice to have.
Thanks,
dean


-----Original Message-----
From: nmo...@li... =
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Steve =
Freeman
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 3:12 PM
To: <nmo...@li...> =
<nmo...@li...>
Subject: Re: [Nmock-general] asynchronous testing

So what are we actually testing here? That SUT calls something that=20
incidentally forks a thread? Maybe the real solution is to encapsulate=20
that forking and mock /that/ behaviour.

On the other hand, when Nat finishes his port of jMock, it will be=20
possible to implement something like a InTime constraint within the=20
framework.

S.

On 18 Apr 2005, at 22:48, Dean Hiller wrote:
> Is there a way to use NMock to test subsystems that have different=20
> threads.
> =20
> Ie. I want to do something like this
> =20
> mockListener.setTimeout(10000);
> =20
> SysUnderTest.addClientListener(mockListener);
> SysUnderTest.invokeToStart();
> =20
> CalledMethod m =3D =
mockListener.expectMethodCall("someMethodOnListener");
> =20
> Where expectMethodCall actually does a Monitor.Wait(timeout) because=20
> the method "someMethodOnListener" is
> Invoked on a different thread and not invoked on the=20
> SysUnderTest.invokeToStart() client thread(ie. The test thread)
> =20
> Is there a way to do this?  Java's mocklib does this very nicely for=20
> this type of testing.


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id=14396&op=3Dick
_______________________________________________
Nmock-general mailing list
Nmo...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-general

--------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments hereto are =
for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, =
privileged and nondisclosable information. If the recipient of this =
e-mail is not the addressee, or a person responsible for delivering this =
e-mail to the addressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from =
reading, printing, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this =
e-mail or any attachments hereto in any way. If the recipient has =
received this e-mail in error, please send return e-mail immediately =
notifying us of your receipt of this e-mail and delete the e-mail from =
your inbox. Thank you.

[Nmock-general] A mock log4net appender

[<thi...@gm...>]

Hi,

I wrote a mock log4net appender to ensure that my tests fails when
some errors are (sometimes silently) logged through log4net.

Sample usage (just a starter):

[SetUp]
public void SetUp()
{
=09DOMConfigurator.Configure();

=09// create a mock log4net appender to verify that no error is outputed
=09mockLog4netAppender =3D new MockLog4netAppender();
=09// expect zero errors
=09mockLog4netAppender.ExpectErrors(0);
=09mockLog4netAppender.RegisterAppender();
}

[TearDown]
public void TearDown()
{
=09// verify that no error was outputed by log4net
=09mockLog4netAppender.Verify();
}


Do you think this idea could fit inside the nmock package ? I know
it's slightly OT, but if you think it can be useful or have other
remarks, please tell me.

regards

Thibaut Barr=E8re
http://www.dotnetguru2.org/tbarrere

Re: [Nmock-general] asynchronous testing

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

So what are we actually testing here? That SUT calls something that=20
incidentally forks a thread? Maybe the real solution is to encapsulate=20=

that forking and mock /that/ behaviour.

On the other hand, when Nat finishes his port of jMock, it will be=20
possible to implement something like a InTime constraint within the=20
framework.

S.

On 18 Apr 2005, at 22:48, Dean Hiller wrote:
> Is there a way to use NMock to test subsystems that have different=20
> threads.
> =A0
> Ie. I want to do something like this
> =A0
> mockListener.setTimeout(10000);
> =A0
> SysUnderTest.addClientListener(mockListener);
> SysUnderTest.invokeToStart();
> =A0
> CalledMethod m =3D =
mockListener.expectMethodCall(=93someMethodOnListener=94);
> =A0
> Where expectMethodCall actually does a Monitor.Wait(timeout) because=20=

> the method =93someMethodOnListener=94 is
> Invoked on a different thread and not invoked on the=20
> SysUnderTest.invokeToStart() client thread(ie. The test thread)
> =A0
> Is there a way to do this?=A0 Java=92s mocklib does this very nicely =
for=20
> this type of testing.=

Re: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock

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

It's hard to tell, since their website reveals so little about them,=20
but I think this is the same team that did something in Java a few=20
years ago. A clue is that they don't refer to anyone else's work in=20
this area.

One view is that they're addressing a different problem from us, but=20
with the usual confusion over names. On the other hand, as Nat points=20
out, they've missed our point about driving a design. On another hand,=20=

so many of the .Net libraries are so badly designed that tools like=20
this may really be necessary.

S.

On 21 Apr 2005, at 17:12, Thibaut Barr=E8re wrote:
> I agree with out on that point (benefits of mock objects + tdd to=20
> guide design)
>
> Still with big bunches of legacy, poorly unit tested code, it's=20
> helpful...
>
> I'm a bit afraid of the "typemock" concept also : mocking all the
> instances of a given type... I'm more comfortable with the dynamic
> mock approach (so far).

Re: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock

[<thi...@gm...>]

I agree with out on that point (benefits of mock objects + tdd to guide des=
ign)

Still with big bunches of legacy, poorly unit tested code, it's helpful...

I'm a bit afraid of the "typemock" concept also : mocking all the
instances of a given type... I'm more comfortable with the dynamic
mock approach (so far).

2005/4/21, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...>:
> Without any intrusion, how will it guide design?
>=20
> --Nat.
>=20
> On 4/21/05, Dean Hiller <dea...@bo...> wrote:
> > Very interesting.  Hibernate does the same thing(and I assume NHibernat=
e also).  In practice, you never even notice the intrusion.  You write plai=
n old java beans and you can get rid of Hibernate at will because of that. =
 It is quite nice.  I am thinking the route TypeMock took may be nice also =
as I don't see the intrusion therefore it doesn't exist :).  Well, it exist=
s, but I am not sure it bothers me as long as it is stable.  If it was unst=
able, it might be a bit harder to debug the problem which I wouldn't like.
> > dean
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thibaut Barr=E8re [mailto:thi...@gm...]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 7:16 AM
> > To: Steve Freeman
> > Cc: Steve Baker; Dean Hiller; <nmo...@li...>; Na=
t Pryce
> > Subject: Re: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock
> >
> > A small note on TypeMock; after reading a few docs, it seems that the
> > approach (at least for real typemocks) is quite different : it seems
> > to be instrumenting the IL (this allow more things without redesigning
> > at all, but is also more instrusive IMHO).
> >
> > any other opinion ?
> >
> > 2005/4/20, Steve Freeman <st...@m3...>:
> > > On 19 Apr 2005, at 21:28, Steve Baker wrote:
> > > > Yeah, it is a rather dead mailing list :(
> > > >
> > > > I use NMock, never looked at TypeMock though.
> > > >
> > > > Nmock has almost always had everything I needed. We even use it to
> > > > Mock out our SqlHelper class (slightly modified from DAAB) so that =
our
> > > > tests never hit a database. It is quick and easy :)
> > >
> > > Not dead, just not very active :) largely because no-one has been
> > > asking for stuff. That said, Nat has started work on porting our jMoc=
k
> > > experience to C# and has come up with some very nice constructs.
> > > Unfortunately, his day job seems to keep getting in the way :) Watch
> > > this space.
> > >
> > > S.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments hereto are=
 for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, privi=
leged and nondisclosable information. If the recipient of this e-mail is no=
t the addressee, or a person responsible for delivering this e-mail to the =
addressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from reading, printing, ph=
otocopying, distributing or otherwise using this e-mail or any attachments =
hereto in any way. If the recipient has received this e-mail in error, plea=
se send return e-mail immediately notifying us of your receipt of this e-ma=
il and delete the e-mail from your inbox. Thank you.
> >
>

RE: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock

[Dean H. <dea...@Bo...>]

I was expecting it has some intrusion like createMockObject that all =
mock libs would have, but that would be it.  I haven't looked at it yet =
and may react differently once I see it. =20

I do agree that there should be something as designs do tend to be =
cleaner when designing for tests upfront.
dean

-----Original Message-----
From: Nat Pryce [mailto:nat...@gm...]=20
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 9:51 AM
To: Dean Hiller
Cc: Thibaut Barr=E8re; Steve Freeman; Steve Baker; =
nmo...@li...
Subject: Re: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock

Without any intrusion, how will it guide design?

--Nat.

On 4/21/05, Dean Hiller <dea...@bo...> wrote:
> Very interesting.  Hibernate does the same thing(and I assume =
NHibernate also).  In practice, you never even notice the intrusion.  =
You write plain old java beans and you can get rid of Hibernate at will =
because of that.  It is quite nice.  I am thinking the route TypeMock =
took may be nice also as I don't see the intrusion therefore it doesn't =
exist :).  Well, it exists, but I am not sure it bothers me as long as =
it is stable.  If it was unstable, it might be a bit harder to debug the =
problem which I wouldn't like.
> dean
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thibaut Barr=E8re [mailto:thi...@gm...]
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 7:16 AM
> To: Steve Freeman
> Cc: Steve Baker; Dean Hiller; <nmo...@li...>; =
Nat Pryce
> Subject: Re: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock
>=20
> A small note on TypeMock; after reading a few docs, it seems that the
> approach (at least for real typemocks) is quite different : it seems
> to be instrumenting the IL (this allow more things without redesigning
> at all, but is also more instrusive IMHO).
>=20
> any other opinion ?
>=20
> 2005/4/20, Steve Freeman <st...@m3...>:
> > On 19 Apr 2005, at 21:28, Steve Baker wrote:
> > > Yeah, it is a rather dead mailing list :(
> > >
> > > I use NMock, never looked at TypeMock though.
> > >
> > > Nmock has almost always had everything I needed. We even use it to
> > > Mock out our SqlHelper class (slightly modified from DAAB) so that =
our
> > > tests never hit a database. It is quick and easy :)
> >
> > Not dead, just not very active :) largely because no-one has been
> > asking for stuff. That said, Nat has started work on porting our =
jMock
> > experience to C# and has come up with some very nice constructs.
> > Unfortunately, his day job seems to keep getting in the way :) Watch
> > this space.
> >
> > S.
> >
> >
>=20
> --------------------------------------------------------
> The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments hereto =
are for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, =
privileged and nondisclosable information. If the recipient of this =
e-mail is not the addressee, or a person responsible for delivering this =
e-mail to the addressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from =
reading, printing, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this =
e-mail or any attachments hereto in any way. If the recipient has =
received this e-mail in error, please send return e-mail immediately =
notifying us of your receipt of this e-mail and delete the e-mail from =
your inbox. Thank you.
>

Re: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock

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

Without any intrusion, how will it guide design?

--Nat.

On 4/21/05, Dean Hiller <dea...@bo...> wrote:
> Very interesting.  Hibernate does the same thing(and I assume NHibernate =
also).  In practice, you never even notice the intrusion.  You write plain =
old java beans and you can get rid of Hibernate at will because of that.  I=
t is quite nice.  I am thinking the route TypeMock took may be nice also as=
 I don't see the intrusion therefore it doesn't exist :).  Well, it exists,=
 but I am not sure it bothers me as long as it is stable.  If it was unstab=
le, it might be a bit harder to debug the problem which I wouldn't like.
> dean
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thibaut Barr=E8re [mailto:thi...@gm...]
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 7:16 AM
> To: Steve Freeman
> Cc: Steve Baker; Dean Hiller; <nmo...@li...>; Nat =
Pryce
> Subject: Re: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock
>=20
> A small note on TypeMock; after reading a few docs, it seems that the
> approach (at least for real typemocks) is quite different : it seems
> to be instrumenting the IL (this allow more things without redesigning
> at all, but is also more instrusive IMHO).
>=20
> any other opinion ?
>=20
> 2005/4/20, Steve Freeman <st...@m3...>:
> > On 19 Apr 2005, at 21:28, Steve Baker wrote:
> > > Yeah, it is a rather dead mailing list :(
> > >
> > > I use NMock, never looked at TypeMock though.
> > >
> > > Nmock has almost always had everything I needed. We even use it to
> > > Mock out our SqlHelper class (slightly modified from DAAB) so that ou=
r
> > > tests never hit a database. It is quick and easy :)
> >
> > Not dead, just not very active :) largely because no-one has been
> > asking for stuff. That said, Nat has started work on porting our jMock
> > experience to C# and has come up with some very nice constructs.
> > Unfortunately, his day job seems to keep getting in the way :) Watch
> > this space.
> >
> > S.
> >
> >
>=20
> --------------------------------------------------------
> The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments hereto are f=
or the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, privile=
ged and nondisclosable information. If the recipient of this e-mail is not =
the addressee, or a person responsible for delivering this e-mail to the ad=
dressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from reading, printing, phot=
ocopying, distributing or otherwise using this e-mail or any attachments he=
reto in any way. If the recipient has received this e-mail in error, please=
 send return e-mail immediately notifying us of your receipt of this e-mail=
 and delete the e-mail from your inbox. Thank you.
>

RE: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock

[Dean H. <dea...@Bo...>]

Very interesting.  Hibernate does the same thing(and I assume NHibernate =
also).  In practice, you never even notice the intrusion.  You write =
plain old java beans and you can get rid of Hibernate at will because of =
that.  It is quite nice.  I am thinking the route TypeMock took may be =
nice also as I don't see the intrusion therefore it doesn't exist :).  =
Well, it exists, but I am not sure it bothers me as long as it is =
stable.  If it was unstable, it might be a bit harder to debug the =
problem which I wouldn't like. =20
dean

-----Original Message-----
From: Thibaut Barr=E8re [mailto:thi...@gm...]=20
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 7:16 AM
To: Steve Freeman
Cc: Steve Baker; Dean Hiller; <nmo...@li...>; Nat =
Pryce
Subject: Re: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock

A small note on TypeMock; after reading a few docs, it seems that the
approach (at least for real typemocks) is quite different : it seems
to be instrumenting the IL (this allow more things without redesigning
at all, but is also more instrusive IMHO).

any other opinion ?

2005/4/20, Steve Freeman <st...@m3...>:
> On 19 Apr 2005, at 21:28, Steve Baker wrote:
> > Yeah, it is a rather dead mailing list :(
> >
> > I use NMock, never looked at TypeMock though.
> >
> > Nmock has almost always had everything I needed. We even use it to
> > Mock out our SqlHelper class (slightly modified from DAAB) so that =
our
> > tests never hit a database. It is quick and easy :)
>=20
> Not dead, just not very active :) largely because no-one has been
> asking for stuff. That said, Nat has started work on porting our jMock
> experience to C# and has come up with some very nice constructs.
> Unfortunately, his day job seems to keep getting in the way :) Watch
> this space.
>=20
> S.
>=20
>

--------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments hereto are =
for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, =
privileged and nondisclosable information. If the recipient of this =
e-mail is not the addressee, or a person responsible for delivering this =
e-mail to the addressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from =
reading, printing, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this =
e-mail or any attachments hereto in any way. If the recipient has =
received this e-mail in error, please send return e-mail immediately =
notifying us of your receipt of this e-mail and delete the e-mail from =
your inbox. Thank you.

Re: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock

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

On 19 Apr 2005, at 21:28, Steve Baker wrote:
> Yeah, it is a rather dead mailing list :(
>
> I use NMock, never looked at TypeMock though.
>
> Nmock has almost always had everything I needed. We even use it to 
> Mock out our SqlHelper class (slightly modified from DAAB) so that our 
> tests never hit a database. It is quick and easy :)

Not dead, just not very active :) largely because no-one has been 
asking for stuff. That said, Nat has started work on porting our jMock 
experience to C# and has come up with some very nice constructs. 
Unfortunately, his day job seems to keep getting in the way :) Watch 
this space.

S.

RE: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock

[Steve B. <St...@ma...>]

Yeah, it is a rather dead mailing list :(

I use NMock, never looked at TypeMock though.

Nmock has almost always had everything I needed. We even use it to Mock =
out our SqlHelper class (slightly modified from DAAB) so that our tests =
never hit a database. It is quick and easy :)

Steve Baker
Senior Consultant
Magenic Technologies
Nobody's more serious about Microsoft.
At the end of the day, it's all just 1's and 0's.
=20

-----Original Message-----
From: nmo...@li... =
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Dean =
Hiller
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 3:12 PM
To: Thibaut Barr=E8re; nmo...@li...
Subject: RE: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock

I would like this too.  Is there anyone on the NMock mailing list that =
has comments on NMock?  Seems rather dead here.
Thanks,
dean

-----Original Message-----
From: nmo...@li... =
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Thibaut =
Barr=E8re
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 8:03 AM
To: nmo...@li...
Subject: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock

Hi again,

I've noticed that on TypeMock website there's a comparison of features
between NMock and TypeMock (for which I don't totally agree, eg: to me
NMock has a "Verify" mode).

http://www.typemock.com/Features.htm

Do you know this framework already ? How does it compare to NMock,
from a NMock user/developer point of view (I'd like to have the other
side of the "feature comparison" :)


best regards

Thibaut


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: New Crystal Reports XI.
Version 11 adds new functionality designed to reduce time involved in
creating, integrating, and deploying reporting solutions. Free runtime =
info,
new features, or free trial, at: =
http://www.businessobjects.com/devxi/728
_______________________________________________
Nmock-general mailing list
Nmo...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-general

--------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments hereto are =
for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, =
privileged and nondisclosable information. If the recipient of this =
e-mail is not the addressee, or a person responsible for delivering this =
e-mail to the addressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from =
reading, printing, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this =
e-mail or any attachments hereto in any way. If the recipient has =
received this e-mail in error, please send return e-mail immediately =
notifying us of your receipt of this e-mail and delete the e-mail from =
your inbox. Thank you.


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: New Crystal Reports XI.
Version 11 adds new functionality designed to reduce time involved in
creating, integrating, and deploying reporting solutions. Free runtime =
info,
new features, or free trial, at: =
http://www.businessobjects.com/devxi/728
_______________________________________________
Nmock-general mailing list
Nmo...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-general

RE: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock

[Dean H. <dea...@Bo...>]

I would like this too.  Is there anyone on the NMock mailing list that =
has comments on NMock?  Seems rather dead here.
Thanks,
dean

-----Original Message-----
From: nmo...@li... =
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Thibaut =
Barr=E8re
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 8:03 AM
To: nmo...@li...
Subject: [Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock

Hi again,

I've noticed that on TypeMock website there's a comparison of features
between NMock and TypeMock (for which I don't totally agree, eg: to me
NMock has a "Verify" mode).

http://www.typemock.com/Features.htm

Do you know this framework already ? How does it compare to NMock,
from a NMock user/developer point of view (I'd like to have the other
side of the "feature comparison" :)


best regards

Thibaut


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: New Crystal Reports XI.
Version 11 adds new functionality designed to reduce time involved in
creating, integrating, and deploying reporting solutions. Free runtime =
info,
new features, or free trial, at: =
http://www.businessobjects.com/devxi/728
_______________________________________________
Nmock-general mailing list
Nmo...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-general

--------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments hereto are =
for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, =
privileged and nondisclosable information. If the recipient of this =
e-mail is not the addressee, or a person responsible for delivering this =
e-mail to the addressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from =
reading, printing, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this =
e-mail or any attachments hereto in any way. If the recipient has =
received this e-mail in error, please send return e-mail immediately =
notifying us of your receipt of this e-mail and delete the e-mail from =
your inbox. Thank you.

[Nmock-general] TypeMock vs. NMock

[<thi...@gm...>]

Hi again,

I've noticed that on TypeMock website there's a comparison of features
between NMock and TypeMock (for which I don't totally agree, eg: to me
NMock has a "Verify" mode).

http://www.typemock.com/Features.htm

Do you know this framework already ? How does it compare to NMock,
from a NMock user/developer point of view (I'd like to have the other
side of the "feature comparison" :)


best regards

Thibaut

RE: [Nmock-general] asynchronous testing

[Dean H. <dea...@Bo...>]

If there is no way at this time, I would be happy to port java's mocklib =
to C#!
Thanks,
dean

-----Original Message-----
From: Thibaut Barr=E8re [mailto:thi...@gm...]=20
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 3:36 AM
To: Dean Hiller
Cc: nmo...@li...
Subject: Re: [Nmock-general] asynchronous testing

Hi

I'm also interested in feedback on multithreaded testing from NMock =
users/devs.

I sometimes do a manual wait with a timeout, but maybe there's a
better way already ?


regards

Thibaut Barr=E8re
http://www.dotnetguru2.org/tbarrere

2005/4/18, Dean Hiller <dea...@bo...>:
> =20
> =20
> =20
>=20
> Is there a way to use NMock to test subsystems that have different =
threads.=20
>=20
>  =20
>=20
> Ie. I want to do something like this=20
>=20
>  =20
>=20
> mockListener.setTimeout(10000);=20
>=20
>  =20
>=20
> SysUnderTest.addClientListener(mockListener);=20
>=20
> SysUnderTest.invokeToStart();=20
>=20
>  =20
>=20
> CalledMethod m =3D =
mockListener.expectMethodCall("someMethodOnListener");=20
>=20
>  =20
>=20
> Where expectMethodCall actually does a Monitor.Wait(timeout) because =
the
> method "someMethodOnListener" is=20
>=20
> Invoked on a different thread and not invoked on the
> SysUnderTest.invokeToStart() client thread(ie. The test thread)=20
>=20
>  =20
>=20
> Is there a way to do this?  Java's mocklib does this very nicely for =
this
> type of testing.=20
>=20
>  =20
>=20
> Thanks,=20
>=20
> dean=20
>=20
>  ________________________________
>  The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments hereto =
are for
> the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, =
privileged
> and nondisclosable information. If the recipient of this e-mail is not =
the
> addressee, or a person responsible for delivering this e-mail to the
> addressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from reading, =
printing,
> photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this e-mail or any =
attachments
> hereto in any way. If the recipient has received this e-mail in error,
> please send return e-mail immediately notifying us of your receipt of =
this
> e-mail and delete the e-mail from your inbox. Thank you.

Re: [Nmock-general] asynchronous testing

[<thi...@gm...>]

Hi

I'm also interested in feedback on multithreaded testing from NMock users/d=
evs.

I sometimes do a manual wait with a timeout, but maybe there's a
better way already ?


regards

Thibaut Barr=E8re
http://www.dotnetguru2.org/tbarrere

2005/4/18, Dean Hiller <dea...@bo...>:
> =20
> =20
> =20
>=20
> Is there a way to use NMock to test subsystems that have different thread=
s.=20
>=20
>  =20
>=20
> Ie. I want to do something like this=20
>=20
>  =20
>=20
> mockListener.setTimeout(10000);=20
>=20
>  =20
>=20
> SysUnderTest.addClientListener(mockListener);=20
>=20
> SysUnderTest.invokeToStart();=20
>=20
>  =20
>=20
> CalledMethod m =3D mockListener.expectMethodCall("someMethodOnListener");=
=20
>=20
>  =20
>=20
> Where expectMethodCall actually does a Monitor.Wait(timeout) because the
> method "someMethodOnListener" is=20
>=20
> Invoked on a different thread and not invoked on the
> SysUnderTest.invokeToStart() client thread(ie. The test thread)=20
>=20
>  =20
>=20
> Is there a way to do this?  Java's mocklib does this very nicely for this
> type of testing.=20
>=20
>  =20
>=20
> Thanks,=20
>=20
> dean=20
>=20
>  ________________________________
>  The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments hereto are =
for
> the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, privileg=
ed
> and nondisclosable information. If the recipient of this e-mail is not th=
e
> addressee, or a person responsible for delivering this e-mail to the
> addressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from reading, printing,
> photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this e-mail or any attachme=
nts
> hereto in any way. If the recipient has received this e-mail in error,
> please send return e-mail immediately notifying us of your receipt of thi=
s
> e-mail and delete the e-mail from your inbox. Thank you.