Menu
▾
▴
nmock-two-dev — Discussion of development of NMock 2
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2005 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(17) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
(13) |
Oct
|
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 |
Jan
|
Feb
(99) |
Mar
(42) |
Apr
(8) |
May
(17) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
(6) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(26) |
Dec
|
| 2007 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(21) |
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
(21) |
Sep
(20) |
Oct
(33) |
Nov
(26) |
Dec
|
| 2008 |
Jan
(45) |
Feb
(8) |
Mar
|
Apr
(2) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(1) |
| 2009 |
Jan
|
Feb
(4) |
Mar
(1) |
Apr
(1) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(9) |
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2008-01-24 19:00:27
|
SeKAmW0gZ29pbmcgdG8gYW5zd2VyIGJvdGggeW91ciBlLW1haWwgYW5kIE1pa2XigJlzICB0byBj b250YWluIHRoZSB0aHJlYWQuDQoNCiANCg0KTWlrZTogIEFzIG1lbnRpb25lZCBiZWxvdywgSeKA mW0gbG9va2luZyBhdCBhIC5ORVQgMi4wIHNvbHV0aW9uIGN1cnJlbnRseS4gIEkgaW1hZ2luZSB0 aGF0IHdlIG1pZ2h0IGJlIGFibGUgdG8gZG8gbW9yZSB3aXRoIGV4dGVuc2lvbiBtZXRob2RzLCBi dXQgY3VycmVudGx5IHRoZXJlIGlzIG5vIHdheSB0byDigJhleHRlbmTigJkgdGhlIGFjdHVhbCBp bnRlcmZhY2UgdG8gaGF2ZSBXaWxsIGFuZCBXaXRoIGFmdGVyIHRoZSBwcm9wZXJ0aWVzIGFyZSBp ZGVudGlmaWVkLg0KDQogDQoNCk15IGlkZWEgaXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgc3lzdGVtIHdvdWxkIHdyYXAg dGhlIGludGVyZmFjZSBiZWluZyBtb2NrZWQgd2hpY2ggaXMgd2h5IHRoZSBjYWxscyBhcmUgYXQg dGhlIGVuZC4gIFJldHVybiB2YWx1ZXMgZnJvbSBtZXRob2RzLCBiZWluZyBkZWZpbmVkIGluIHRo ZSBFeHBlY3Qgc3ludGF4IGFyZSBpZ25vcmVkIHdoZW4gc2V0dGluZyB1cCB0aGUgTW9jay4NCg0K IA0KDQpBbHNvLCB0aGUgR2V0IGFuZCBNZXRob2QgYXJlIGFscmVhZHkgZGVmaW5lZCBhbmQgSSB3 YW50IHRvIGFkZC10byBhbmQgbm90IHJlcGxhY2UgdGhlIGV4aXN0aW5nIG1vZGVzLg0KDQogDQoN CkRyZXc6DQoNCllvdXIgT25Qcm9wZXJ0eSBtZXRob2Qgd2lsbCBldmFsdWF0ZSB0byB0aGUgdmFs dWUgb2YgdGhlIHByb3BlcnR5LCBub3QgdGhlIHByb3BlcnR5IGl0c2VsZiBhbmQgc2luY2UgdGhl IHByb3BlcnR5IGNvbWVzIGZyb20gYSBNb2NrIHlvdSB3aWxsIGFjY2VzcyBpdCBiZWZvcmUgaXQg aXMgZGVmaW5lZC4NCg0KIA0KDQogDQoNCkFzIEkgc2FpZCBvcmlnaW5hbGx5LCAgSSBkb27igJl0 IGhhdmUgYSBoYW5kbGUgb24gYW4gaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24gYW5kIEkgZG9u4oCZdCByZWFsbHkg bGlrZSB0aGUgc3ludGF4IHNvIEnigJltIHN0aWxsIG9wZW4gZm9yIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb25zLCBidXQg SSBkb27igJl0IHRoaW5rIGVpdGhlciBvZiB0aGVzZSB3aWxsIHdvcmsuDQoNCiANCg0KRnJvbTog bm1vY2stdHdvLWRldi1ib3VuY2VzQGxpc3RzLnNvdXJjZWZvcmdlLm5ldCBbbWFpbHRvOm5tb2Nr LXR3by1kZXYtYm91bmNlc0BsaXN0cy5zb3VyY2Vmb3JnZS5uZXRdIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBEcmV3 IE5vYWtlcw0KU2VudDogVGh1cnNkYXksIEphbnVhcnkgMjQsIDIwMDggMTE6NDMgQU0NClRvOiBO TW9jazIgRGV2ZWxvcG1lbnQgRGlzY3Vzc2lvbg0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtOTW9jazItRGV2XSBS ZWZhY3RvcmFibGUgY2FsbHMNCg0KIA0KDQo+RXhwZWN0Lk9uY2UuT24oZm9vKS5TZXR0ZXIuUGxv bmsuV2l0aCgxMjMpOw0KPkV4cGVjdC5PbmNlLk9uKGZvbykuR2V0dGVyLlNxdWVlLldpbGwoLi4u KTsNCj4NCj53aGVyZSBNZXRob2QsIFNldHRlciBhbmQgR2V0dGVyIGFsbCByZXR1cm4geW91ciBn ZW5lcmF0ZWQgSUZvbz8NCg0KDQpJZiBTZXR0ZXIgJiBHZXR0ZXIgcmV0dXJuIElGb28sIGhvdyBj YW4gdGhleSBoYXZlIHRoZSBXaXRoIGFuZCBXaWxsIG1lbWJlcnM/DQoNClByb3BlcnRpZXMgYWx3 YXlzIGhhdmUgYSByZXR1cm4gdHlwZSBzbyBob3cgYWJvdXQ6DQoNCiAgICBFeHBlY3QuT25jZS5P blByb3BlcnR5KGZvby5Qcm9wKS5XaXRoKDEyMyk7DQogICAgRXhwZWN0Lk9uY2UuT25Qcm9wZXJ0 eShmb28uUHJvcCkuV2lsbChSZXR1cm4uVmFsdWUoMTIzKSk7DQoNClRoZSBPblByb3BlcnR5IG1l dGhvZCB3b3VsZCBoYXZlIGEgc2lnbmF0dXJlIGxpa2UgdGhpczoNCg0KICAgIHB1YmxpYyBJUHJv cGVydHlPcHRpb25zPFQ+IE9uUHJvcGVydHkoVCBwcm9wZXJ0eSk7DQoNCkFuZCBpbnRlcmZhY2Ug SVByb3BlcnR5T3B0aW9uczxUPiB3b3VsZCBoYXZlIG1lbWJlcnM6DQoNCiAgICB2b2lkIFdpdGgo VCBleHBlY3RlZFZhbHVlKTsNCiAgICB2b2lkIFdpbGwoQWN0aW9uPFQ+IGFjdGlvbik7DQoNCi4u LmFzIHdlbGwgYXMgc29tZSBleHRyYSBvdmVybG9hZHMgdG8gc3VwcG9ydCBtYXRjaGVycy4NCg0K VW5mb3J0dW5hdGVseSB0aGlzIHJlcXVpcmVzIHNvbWUgd2F5IHRvIHRyYXAgdGhlIHVzYWdlIG9m IHRoZSBtb2NrIGR1cmluZyBzZXR0aW5nIHVwIG9mIGV4cGVjdGF0aW9ucy4gIEkgYmVsaWV2ZSB0 aGlzIG1pZ2h0IGJlIHBvc3NpYmxlIHdpdGhvdXQgYW4gZXhwbGljaXQgcmVjb3JkL3JlcGxheSBz ZWN0aW9uOg0KDQogICBFeHBlY3QuT25jZS5PblByb3BlcnR5KGZvby5Qcm9wKS5XaXRoKDEyMyk7 DQoNClVubGVzcyBJJ20gbWlzdGFrZW4sIHRoZSBvcmRlciBvZiBleGVjdXRpb24gaGVyZSBpczoN Cg0KMSkgRXhwZWN0Lk9uY2UNCjIpIGZvby5Qcm9wDQozKSBPblByb3BlcnR5KC4uLikNCg0KRHVy aW5nIHN0ZXAgMSBhIGZsYWcgY291bGQgYmUgc2V0IGludGVybmFsbHkgc3VjaCB0aGF0IHRoZSBu ZXh0IHVzYWdlIG9mIGEgbW9jayBpcyBjb25zaWRlcmVkIGEgcmVjb3JkaW5nLiAgSW4gc3RlcCAy IHRoZSBkeW5hbWljIHByb3BlcnR5IGtub3dzIGl0J3MgaW4gcmVjb3JkIG1vZGUsIHNvIHJldHVy bnMgZGVmYXVsdChUKSwgYW5kIHRoZSByZWNvcmRpbmcgZmxhZyBpcyBjbGVhcmVkLiAgRmluYWxs eSwgdGhlIHByb3BlcnR5J3MgaWRlbnRpdHkgaXMgdXNlZCBpbiBzdGVwIDMuICBBdCB0aGlzIHBv aW50LCBhbGwgcmVtZW1iZXJlZCBzdGF0ZSBhcmUgY2xlYXJlZC4gIEFzIHRoZSBzdGF0ZSBpcyBu b3QgZXhwbGljaXRseSBwYXNzZWQgYmV0d2VlbiB0aGVzZSBwaWVjZXMgb2YgY29kZSBpdCB3b3Vs ZCBoYXZlIHRvIGJlIGRpc2NvdmVyYWJsZSwgdGhvdWdoIGdsb2JhbCBzdGF0ZSB3b3VsZCBtZWFu IG5vIHJ1bm5pbmcgdGVzdHMgY29uY3VycmVudGx5LiAgVGhlcmVmb3JlLCBpdCBtYWtlcyBzZW5z ZSB0byBhc3NvY2lhdGUgYW55IGZsYWdzL21lbW9yeSB0byBleGVjdXRpbmcgdGhyZWFkLiAgVGhp cyBzdGF0ZSB3b3VsZCBuZWVkIHRvIGJlIGNhcmVmdWxseSBjb25zaWRlcmVkIGFuZCB0ZXN0ZWQg aW4gb3RoZXIgdXNhZ2Ugc2NlbmFyaW9zIHRvby4NCg0KVGhpcyBpcyBwcmV0dHkgc2ltaWxhciB0 byB3aGF0IFJoaW5vLk1vY2tzIGRvZXMgSSB0aGluaywgdGhvdWdoIHdpdGhvdXQgdGhlIGV4cGxp Y2l0IHJlY29yZCBhbmQgcGxheWJhY2sgc2VjdGlvbnMuICBJZiB0aGlzIGRlc2lnbiB3b3JrZWQg aXQgbWlnaHQgYmUgcXVpdGUgbmljZSB0byB3b3JrIHdpdGguICBJZiwgaG93ZXZlciwgaXQgaW50 cm9kdWNlZCBsb3RzIG9mIG9wcG9ydHVuaXR5IHRvIGJlIGNvbmZ1c2VkIGJ5IHVuZXhwZWN0ZWQg YmVoYXZpb3VyIHRoZW4gSSB3b3VsZCBhdm9pZCBpdC4NCg0KRHJldy4NCg0KDQoNCg0KIA0KDQpf X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KDQpTZW50IGZyb20gWWFob28hIDxodHRw Oi8vdXMucmQueWFob28uY29tL21haWx1ay90YWdsaW5lcy9pc3AvY29udHJvbC8qaHR0cDovdXMu cmQueWFob28uY29tL2V2dD01MTk0OS8qaHR0cDovdWsuZG9jcy55YWhvby5jb20vbWFpbC93aW50 ZXIwNy5odG1sPiAgLSBhIHNtYXJ0ZXIgaW5ib3guDQoNCg== |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2008-01-24 18:16:11
|
On 23/01/2008, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote:
> I've looked a jMock's implementation and I've looked at Rhino. I don't
> really like the two line setups with the Call/LastCall that is the same as
> the Rhino expectations. I'm trying to think of an 'NMock-like'
> implementation of the same thing that keeps the fluent interface going.
JMock's API was a desperate attempt to work around Java's butt-ugly
syntax for closures. C# has a cleaner syntax, so you could do
something like the example below.
A mockA = mockery.mock(typeof(A));
B mockB = mockery.mock(typeof(B));
mockery.Checking(delegate {
mockA.DoSomething(EqualTo(B), NotNull);
Once; mockB.GetStuff(); Will(Return("stuff"));
});
The Checking method would put the mockery into a "record" state, call
the delegate, and then put the mockery back into a "check" state.
That would be much easier to implement in C# than Java because C# has
real generics and closures.
Even better would be something like:
mockery.Checking(delegate {
... run the test in here
}.WillCause(delegate {
... expectations in here
});
Which makes the expectations read more like assertions. It puts the
tested code and the expectations in causal order, which is easier to
read I think.
--Nat
|
|
From: Drew N. <dre...@ya...> - 2008-01-24 17:43:01
|
>Expect.Once.On(foo).Setter.Plonk.With(123);=0A>Expect.Once.On(foo).Getter.= Squee.Will(...);=0A>=0A>where Method, Setter and Getter all return your gen= erated IFoo?=0A=0A=0AIf Setter & Getter return IFoo, how can they have the = With and Will members?=0A=0AProperties always have a return type so how abo= ut:=0A=0A Expect.Once.OnProperty(foo.Prop).With(123);=0A Expect.Once.= OnProperty(foo.Prop).Will(Return.Value(123));=0A=0AThe OnProperty method wo= uld have a signature like this:=0A=0A public IPropertyOptions<T> OnPrope= rty(T property);=0A=0AAnd interface IPropertyOptions<T> would have members:= =0A=0A void With(T expectedValue);=0A=0A void Will(Action<T> action);= =0A=0A=0A=0A...as well as some extra overloads to support matchers.=0A=0AUn= fortunately this requires some way to trap the usage of the mock during set= ting up of expectations. I believe this might be possible without an expli= cit record/replay section:=0A=0A Expect.Once.OnProperty(foo.Prop).With(12= 3);=0A=0AUnless I'm mistaken, the order of execution here is:=0A=0A1) Expec= t.Once=0A2) foo.Prop=0A3) OnProperty(...)=0A=0ADuring step 1 a flag could b= e set internally such that the next usage of a mock is considered a recordi= ng. In step 2 the dynamic property knows it's in record mode, so returns d= efault(T), and the recording flag is cleared. Finally, the property's iden= tity is used in step 3. At this point, all remembered state are cleared. = As the state is not explicitly passed between these pieces of code it would= have to be discoverable, though global state would mean no running tests c= oncurrently. Therefore, it makes sense to associate any flags/memory to ex= ecuting thread. This state would need to be carefully considered and teste= d in other usage scenarios too.=0A=0AThis is pretty similar to what Rhino.M= ocks does I think, though without the explicit record and playback sections= . If this design worked it might be quite nice to work with. If, however,= it introduced lots of opportunity to be confused by unexpected behaviour t= hen I would avoid it.=0A=0ADrew.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A _______= ___________________________________________________=0ASent from Yahoo! Mail= - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com=0A |
|
From: Mike C. <mik...@gm...> - 2008-01-23 18:09:27
|
On 23/01/2008, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote:
>[snip]
>Expect.Once.On(m_foo).Will(Return.Value("X")).From.MethodOnFoo("bar");
>Expect.Once.On(m_foo).From.PropertyOnFoo = 6;
>Expect.Once.On(m_foo).Get.From.PropertyOnFoo = 4; // 4 would be the
return value.
>[snip]
I don't think "From" reads well in the general case. Your method
example sounds fluent if you read it as "Will ReturnSomething From",
but the structure is "Will (ArbitrarySetOfActions) From" which makes
less sense, and where there's no Will clause the "From" on its own is
downright confusing.
How about
Expect.Once.On(foo).Method.Blah.With(123).Will(...);
Expect.Once.On(foo).Setter.Plonk.With(123);
Expect.Once.On(foo).Getter.Squee.Will(...);
where Method, Setter and Getter all return your generated IFoo?
- Mike
|
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2008-01-23 16:09:55
|
I've looked a jMock's implementation and I've looked at Rhino. I don't
really like the two line setups with the Call/LastCall that is the same
as the Rhino expectations. I'm trying to think of an 'NMock-like'
implementation of the same thing that keeps the fluent interface going.
=20
What I was thinking about was something along the lines of
=20
Expect.Once.On(m_foo).Will(Return.Value("X")).From.MethodOnFoo("bar");
=20
=20
>From will return a generated implementation of the IFoo interface that
will build the mocks.
=20
I can't, however think of a good pattern for doing property gets and
event handlers.
=20
Property sets are the same as the methods
=20
Expect.Once.On(m_foo).From.PropertyOnFoo =3D 6;
=20
It would be clunky, but we could have
=20
Expect.Once.On(m_foo).Get.From.PropertyOnFoo =3D 4; // 4 would be the
return value.
=20
Like I said, I don't like the property get.
=20
|
|
From: Owen R. <exo...@gm...> - 2008-01-21 05:44:45
|
sorry for the delay. i've updated the ccnet.config file and the nmock build is now passing. i forgot to mention: the nmock2 binaries are now published at: http://ccnetlive.thoughtworks.com/NMock2%2Dbuilds/ cheers, owen. On 17/01/2008, Owen Rogers <exo...@gm...> wrote: > On 17/01/2008, aci...@ac... <aci...@ac...> wrote: > > > thanks for your ongoing work on nmock2. i've set up ccnetlive to > > > monitor the nmock2 module in cvs. unfortunately, unless i'm doing > > > something wrong, it looks like the nmock2 build is currently failing > > > due to a compilation issue. btw, ccnet is running the cruise target in > > > the nmock2.build file. > > > > Thanks for getting that setup. I think I've broken the build by some > > refactoring and directory cleanup I just did. I moved NAnt.exe to > > tools\nant\nant.exe instead of tools\nant.exe. I think this can just be > > updated in the ccnetlive setup, someone please correct me if I'm wrong. > > yes. it is specified in the ccnet.config. i don't have time to resolve > it now, but i will try to do so later on this evening. > cheers, > owen. > -- > Owen Rogers | http://exortech.com/blog | > CruiseControl.NET - http://ccnet.thoughtworks.com > -- Owen Rogers | http://exortech.com/blog | CruiseControl.NET - http://ccnet.thoughtworks.com |
|
From: Thomas W. <tho...@gm...> - 2008-01-19 12:49:29
|
Hi Steve I will take the look to jMock on my TODO list. Thanx Thomas > Hooray. > > As a first cut, can I suggest you take a look at what we've been > doing with jMock? Not all of it will be relevant but we have learned > some lessons. > > My feeling is that "supported by" is fine -- as long as it actually > is. A certain Agile consultancy has been a bit feeble in keeping the > project alive. > > S. > > On 14 Jan 2008, at 19:41, Thomas Weingartner wrote: > > >> Yes it is true that I'm going to continue NMock2. >> >> I had some EMails with Nick Hines from the NMock2 project and I didn't >> realize that the NMock project is using NMock2 as a moniker. There was >> no commit activity on the CVS of NMock for the last 7 month. Even >> worse >> is that there was no update of the documentation and the web site. On >> NMock.org is still a release candidate available; no releases. So we >> thought the project is dead. >> >> We used NMock2 in our last project and we will use it on more >> projects. >> >> The main goals we have are >> - Maintaining documentation, releases and the forums >> - Document and cleaning the code >> - Incorporating of new ideas (e.g. get rid of strings, mocking classes >> etc.) >> >> >> We really want to continue NMock2 code and really want to combine >> efforts on NMock and NMock2. >> >> Just to make our standpoint clear: The company where I work will >> support >> the NMock2 project. I'm the project leader and I have two developers >> that will help me maintaining everything. We will get some official >> daily time to develop for NMock2. On the other hand the company >> want to >> see something like "supported by xyz" with their logo and a link to >> the >> web site. >> >> Kind Regards >> Thomas >> > > > Steve Freeman > Winner of the Agile Alliance Gordon Pask award 2006 > > http://www.m3p.co.uk > > M3P Limited. > Registered office. 2 Church Street, Burnham, Bucks, SL1 7HZ. > Company registered in England & Wales. Number 03689627 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. > It's the best place to buy or sell services for > just about anything Open Source. > http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > > |
|
From: Owen R. <exo...@gm...> - 2008-01-18 00:54:26
|
On 17/01/2008, aci...@ac... <aci...@ac...> wrote: > > thanks for your ongoing work on nmock2. i've set up ccnetlive to > > monitor the nmock2 module in cvs. unfortunately, unless i'm doing > > something wrong, it looks like the nmock2 build is currently failing > > due to a compilation issue. btw, ccnet is running the cruise target in > > the nmock2.build file. > > Thanks for getting that setup. I think I've broken the build by some > refactoring and directory cleanup I just did. I moved NAnt.exe to > tools\nant\nant.exe instead of tools\nant.exe. I think this can just be > updated in the ccnetlive setup, someone please correct me if I'm wrong. yes. it is specified in the ccnet.config. i don't have time to resolve it now, but i will try to do so later on this evening. cheers, owen. -- Owen Rogers | http://exortech.com/blog | CruiseControl.NET - http://ccnet.thoughtworks.com |
|
From: <aci...@ac...> - 2008-01-18 00:44:07
|
> thanks for your ongoing work on nmock2. i've set up ccnetlive to > monitor the nmock2 module in cvs. unfortunately, unless i'm doing > something wrong, it looks like the nmock2 build is currently failing > due to a compilation issue. btw, ccnet is running the cruise target in > the nmock2.build file. Thanks for getting that setup. I think I've broken the build by some refactoring and directory cleanup I just did. I moved NAnt.exe to tools\nant\nant.exe instead of tools\nant.exe. I think this can just be updated in the ccnetlive setup, someone please correct me if I'm wrong. -Richard Holden |
|
From: <aci...@ac...> - 2008-01-17 17:59:19
|
> I'm taking a look at fixing this right now, and then hopefully we'll get a > good build out. If I can't fix it I agree we should just do 1.1 builds > manually. > > -Richard Holden > > I've got a fix, as soon as I get my work dev computer setup with sourceforge cvs I'll get it committed. -Richard Holden |
|
From: <aci...@ac...> - 2008-01-17 17:24:26
|
On Thu, January 17, 2008 10:06 am, Steve Mitcham wrote: > We've discussed dropping future support for 1.1 in the past and got a > little kickback. However, I personally have no heartburn in modifying > the build script to have the cruise be a 2.0 target by default. Legacy > 1.1 can remain by leaving the old manual builds in place. I'm taking a look at fixing this right now, and then hopefully we'll get a good build out. If I can't fix it I agree we should just do 1.1 builds manually. -Richard Holden |
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2008-01-17 17:09:58
|
We've discussed dropping future support for 1.1 in the past and got a little kickback. However, I personally have no heartburn in modifying the build script to have the cruise be a 2.0 target by default. Legacy 1.1 can remain by leaving the old manual builds in place. =20 From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Mike Mason Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:58 AM To: NMock2 Development Discussion Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] ThoughtWorks and CruiseControl.NET =20 It looks like it's doing a .NET 1.1 compile -- do we really need to continue to support 1.1? It was a bit of a hack in the first place because of our use of generics in the .NET 2.0 builds. |
|
From: Mike M. <mg...@es...> - 2008-01-17 16:58:15
|
It looks like it's doing a .NET 1.1 compile -- do we really need to continue to support 1.1? It was a bit of a hack in the first place because of our use of generics in the .NET 2.0 builds. |
|
From: Owen R. <exo...@gm...> - 2008-01-17 16:43:56
|
On 14/01/2008, aci...@ac... <aci...@ac...> wrote: > I have been looking through our build and release process and I think we > could greatly simplify our work if we could get NMock2 building and > creating packages with CruiseControl.NET. Currently I see that the old > NMock code is being checked out and build on ccnetlive.thoughtworks.com. > > If anyone could put me in contact with someone at ThoughtWorks that can > update our CruiseControl.NET setup to checkout and build NMock2, and maybe > any pointers they would have on getting a good hierarchy of build numbers > setup I would appreciate it. > > Hopefully we can continue to move this project forward, I would like to > update Sourceforge with a new build by the end of the week if I can. thanks for your ongoing work on nmock2. i've set up ccnetlive to monitor the nmock2 module in cvs. unfortunately, unless i'm doing something wrong, it looks like the nmock2 build is currently failing due to a compilation issue. btw, ccnet is running the cruise target in the nmock2.build file. cheers, owen. -- Owen Rogers | http://dotnetjunkies.com/weblog/exortech | CruiseControl.NET - http://ccnet.thoughtworks.com |
|
From: Steve F. <st...@m3...> - 2008-01-14 20:13:35
|
Hooray. As a first cut, can I suggest you take a look at what we've been doing with jMock? Not all of it will be relevant but we have learned some lessons. My feeling is that "supported by" is fine -- as long as it actually is. A certain Agile consultancy has been a bit feeble in keeping the project alive. S. On 14 Jan 2008, at 19:41, Thomas Weingartner wrote: > Yes it is true that I'm going to continue NMock2. > > I had some EMails with Nick Hines from the NMock2 project and I didn't > realize that the NMock project is using NMock2 as a moniker. There was > no commit activity on the CVS of NMock for the last 7 month. Even > worse > is that there was no update of the documentation and the web site. On > NMock.org is still a release candidate available; no releases. So we > thought the project is dead. > > We used NMock2 in our last project and we will use it on more > projects. > > The main goals we have are > - Maintaining documentation, releases and the forums > - Document and cleaning the code > - Incorporating of new ideas (e.g. get rid of strings, mocking classes > etc.) > > > We really want to continue NMock2 code and really want to combine > efforts on NMock and NMock2. > > Just to make our standpoint clear: The company where I work will > support > the NMock2 project. I'm the project leader and I have two developers > that will help me maintaining everything. We will get some official > daily time to develop for NMock2. On the other hand the company > want to > see something like "supported by xyz" with their logo and a link to > the > web site. > > Kind Regards > Thomas Steve Freeman Winner of the Agile Alliance Gordon Pask award 2006 http://www.m3p.co.uk M3P Limited. Registered office. 2 Church Street, Burnham, Bucks, SL1 7HZ. Company registered in England & Wales. Number 03689627 |
|
From: Thomas W. <tho...@gm...> - 2008-01-14 19:41:29
|
Yes it is true that I'm going to continue NMock2. I had some EMails with Nick Hines from the NMock2 project and I didn't realize that the NMock project is using NMock2 as a moniker. There was no commit activity on the CVS of NMock for the last 7 month. Even worse is that there was no update of the documentation and the web site. On NMock.org is still a release candidate available; no releases. So we thought the project is dead. We used NMock2 in our last project and we will use it on more projects. The main goals we have are - Maintaining documentation, releases and the forums - Document and cleaning the code - Incorporating of new ideas (e.g. get rid of strings, mocking classes etc.) We really want to continue NMock2 code and really want to combine efforts on NMock and NMock2. Just to make our standpoint clear: The company where I work will support the NMock2 project. I'm the project leader and I have two developers that will help me maintaining everything. We will get some official daily time to develop for NMock2. On the other hand the company want to see something like "supported by xyz" with their logo and a link to the web site. Kind Regards Thomas |
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2008-01-14 19:39:13
|
I've had a conversation with Thomas Weingartner, the person that started up the NMock2 project again, and he did not intend a fork and will be getting on this list to work on consolidating the effort and moving forward. |
|
From: <aci...@ac...> - 2008-01-14 19:26:32
|
I have been looking through our build and release process and I think we could greatly simplify our work if we could get NMock2 building and creating packages with CruiseControl.NET. Currently I see that the old NMock code is being checked out and build on ccnetlive.thoughtworks.com. If anyone could put me in contact with someone at ThoughtWorks that can update our CruiseControl.NET setup to checkout and build NMock2, and maybe any pointers they would have on getting a good hierarchy of build numbers setup I would appreciate it. Hopefully we can continue to move this project forward, I would like to update Sourceforge with a new build by the end of the week if I can. Thank you, -Richard Holden |
|
From: Mike M. <mg...@es...> - 2008-01-11 00:15:20
|
If it's the actual NMock2 project on sourceforge, it's a very old effort by Nick Hines that I'm not sure has been worked on for a long time. I was personally very confused about this project's existance, hence the post in the NMock2 project (of which I am an administrator) about NMock2 being available from nmock.org. Why someone is picking it up I don't know. http://nmock2.wiki.sourceforge.net/News seems to indicate someone is working on it. Looks like a guy called Thomas Weing who has been added as an administrator. Must be Nick who added him. Hopefully you hear back from him about his work/port. |
|
From: <aci...@ac...> - 2008-01-10 22:02:36
|
If you've been following the Version number for RC thread you will have seen that someone has resurrected the NMock2 project on sourceforge to fork (our perception) the NMock 2.0 code. I think this may be because we as a project don't have much visible progress, considering that the last downloadable version is now coming up on being 2 years old. We also have bugs and Feature requests that have not been addressed in quite a while. To solve this problem I am volunteering myself to cleanup the sourceforge project information, and can even put together the RC if it is helpful. I would also like to create a CVS branch and start moving work forward on the .NET 2.0 and later only version of NMock2. I would need developer access to accomplish this and I think I have shown that I am committed to this project and can help it to move forward. Thank you, -Richard Holden SourceForge User: aciddeath |
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2008-01-10 19:18:00
|
I sent an e-mail to the guy making the edits to find out why the need for a fork, since I don't recognize the name, I'm unsure as to why they didn't post here before striving out on their own. -----Original Message----- From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Steve Mitcham Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 1:04 PM To: NMock2 Development Discussion Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Version number for RC Life happened and I ran out of time to work this at work because of other issues, and my home machine melted down. This looks like someone picked up the code and has started a fork. -----Original Message----- From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of aci...@ac... Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:58 PM To: NMock2 Development Discussion Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Version number for RC On Fri, November 30, 2007 9:37 am, Mike Mason wrote: > On Nov 30, 2007 8:09 AM, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote: > >> What version number do we want to stick on the RC? I'm going to build >> and post it today. >> > The previous RC was RC1 so I guess RC2 is appropriate. If you mean actual > DLL version number I'm not sure--is the usual practice to use 1.99.x.x or > 2.0.x.x for an early release? I haven't seen any update to the NMock sourceforge project or the NMock.org site about the new RC, will it be up anytime soon. Also I saw that there was new postings on the NMock2 sourceforge project, does anyone know if that is an attempt to continue development on NMock2 as a separate entity or is this someone forking the codebase? -Richard Holden ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketp lace _______________________________________________ NMock-two-dev mailing list NMo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketp lace _______________________________________________ NMock-two-dev mailing list NMo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev |
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2008-01-10 19:07:01
|
Life happened and I ran out of time to work this at work because of other issues, and my home machine melted down. This looks like someone picked up the code and has started a fork. -----Original Message----- From: nmo...@li... [mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of aci...@ac... Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:58 PM To: NMock2 Development Discussion Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Version number for RC On Fri, November 30, 2007 9:37 am, Mike Mason wrote: > On Nov 30, 2007 8:09 AM, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote: > >> What version number do we want to stick on the RC? I'm going to build >> and post it today. >> > The previous RC was RC1 so I guess RC2 is appropriate. If you mean actual > DLL version number I'm not sure--is the usual practice to use 1.99.x.x or > 2.0.x.x for an early release? I haven't seen any update to the NMock sourceforge project or the NMock.org site about the new RC, will it be up anytime soon. Also I saw that there was new postings on the NMock2 sourceforge project, does anyone know if that is an attempt to continue development on NMock2 as a separate entity or is this someone forking the codebase? -Richard Holden ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketp lace _______________________________________________ NMock-two-dev mailing list NMo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev |
|
From: <aci...@ac...> - 2008-01-10 18:58:01
|
On Fri, November 30, 2007 9:37 am, Mike Mason wrote: > On Nov 30, 2007 8:09 AM, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote: > >> What version number do we want to stick on the RC? I'm going to build >> and post it today. >> > The previous RC was RC1 so I guess RC2 is appropriate. If you mean actual > DLL version number I'm not sure--is the usual practice to use 1.99.x.x or > 2.0.x.x for an early release? I haven't seen any update to the NMock sourceforge project or the NMock.org site about the new RC, will it be up anytime soon. Also I saw that there was new postings on the NMock2 sourceforge project, does anyone know if that is an attempt to continue development on NMock2 as a separate entity or is this someone forking the codebase? -Richard Holden |
|
From: Mike M. <mg...@es...> - 2007-11-30 16:44:50
|
On Nov 30, 2007 8:09 AM, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote: > What version number do we want to stick on the RC? I'm going to build > and post it today. > The previous RC was RC1 so I guess RC2 is appropriate. If you mean actual DLL version number I'm not sure--is the usual practice to use 1.99.x.x or 2.0.x.x for an early release? |
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2007-11-30 15:08:35
|
What version number do we want to stick on the RC? I'm going to build and post it today. |
9 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
