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...> - 2006-08-18 13:23:39
|
Making Nmock2 a friend assembly would work. You could also have a
conditional compilation flag that made them public when built for
testing purposes. However, I think the value of testing internal
interfaces directly is limited.
________________________________
From: nmo...@li...
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of David
Webster-Jaggard
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 8:09 AM
To: nmo...@li...
Subject: [NMock2-Dev] Access is denied on internal interfaces?
=20
I'm upgrading our unit tests to NMock2 and have come across a bit of a
problem. If I try to mock and internal interface I get an access denied
error when I run the test. Here is some example code:
=20
using NMock2;
using NUnit.Framework;
=20
namespace NMock2Test
{
internal interface IInternalInterface
{
void DoNothing();
}
=20
[TestFixture]
public class Class1
{
[Test]
public void Test()
{
Mockery mocks =3D new Mockery();
IInternalInterface mockInterface =3D
mocks.NewMock<IInternalInterface>();
}
}
}
=20
Is there anyway to get around this (maybe make NMock2 a friend assembly,
however you do that..)? I don't want to start making internal interfaces
public.
=20
Thanks
=20
--=20
This message has been scanned for viruses and=20
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is
believed to be clean.=20
|
|
From: David Webster-J. <da...@pi...> - 2006-08-18 13:10:10
|
I'm upgrading our unit tests to NMock2 and have come across a bit of a
problem. If I try to mock and internal interface I get an access denied
error when I run the test. Here is some example code:
using NMock2;
using NUnit.Framework;
namespace NMock2Test
{
internal interface IInternalInterface
{
void DoNothing();
}
[TestFixture]
public class Class1
{
[Test]
public void Test()
{
Mockery mocks = new Mockery();
IInternalInterface mockInterface =
mocks.NewMock<IInternalInterface>();
}
}
}
Is there anyway to get around this (maybe make NMock2 a friend assembly,
however you do that..)? I don't want to start making internal interfaces
public.
Thanks
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
|
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2006-08-10 13:21:43
|
Patches involving the csproject apparently end up too large to submit to the list. Can someone with direct CVS access update the csproj file to include the ElementMatcher.cs file in the Matchers directory?=20 |
|
From: <joe...@fr...> - 2006-07-07 15:05:56
|
I was having a problem with the Ordered property and found mention of it = when searching for "Ordered Bug" on this list. There appears to be a fix, = but it isn't in the release candidate or the latest build. =20 Does anybody have an idea about when it will appear=3F =20 Really enjoying NMock2 - thanks. =20 Joe =20 This e-mail is confidential and may well also be legally privileged. If you= = have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify u= s= immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system.= = Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents = to any other person: to do so could be a breach of confidence. Thank you fo= r= your co-operation. Please contact our IT Helpdesk on +44 (0) 20 7936 4000 = Ext.2000 or email IT...@fr... if you need assistance. Please refer to http://www.freshfields.com/legalnotice/uk.asp for regulator= y= information relating to the provision of insurance mediation services.=20 |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-06-28 04:52:16
|
And is nmock2 ever going to be released? Slapping "Release sponsored by Thoughtworks" on the website and then not releasing is not very good advertising! --Nat. |
|
From: Jim A. <JA...@th...> - 2006-05-26 15:50:10
|
Very true, I had assumed that already worked. Fixed fix attached. Jim "Nat Pryce" <nat...@gm...>=20 Sent by: nmo...@li... 26/05/2006 15:11 Please respond to nmo...@li... To nmo...@li... cc Subject Re: [NMock2-Dev] BUG: Cannot stub on properties returning value types Shouldn't a default value be generated for value types results of *any* method, not just property getters? --Nat. On 5/26/06, Jim Arnold <JA...@th...> wrote: > As the subject says. The fix and tests are attached. > > I seem to remember fixing some very similar bugs in NMock 1 - can't we > just re-use the proxy code from there or, better yet, use the Castle=20 Proxy > framework? The System.Remoting.Proxy stuff is really limited, is a pain > to debug, and we're reinventing stuff that's been done several times > before. No offense Nat :) > > Jim > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk! Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=107521&bid$8729&dat=121642 =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-two-dev mailing list NMo...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-05-26 14:11:25
|
Shouldn't a default value be generated for value types results of *any* method, not just property getters? --Nat. On 5/26/06, Jim Arnold <JA...@th...> wrote: > As the subject says. The fix and tests are attached. > > I seem to remember fixing some very similar bugs in NMock 1 - can't we > just re-use the proxy code from there or, better yet, use the Castle Prox= y > framework? The System.Remoting.Proxy stuff is really limited, is a pain > to debug, and we're reinventing stuff that's been done several times > before. No offense Nat :) > > Jim > > > > > |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-05-26 14:09:11
|
Sure. I used the System.Remoting.Proxy stuff as a quick way to get me started. Use something better by all means. --Nat. On 5/26/06, Jim Arnold <JA...@th...> wrote: > As the subject says. The fix and tests are attached. > > I seem to remember fixing some very similar bugs in NMock 1 - can't we > just re-use the proxy code from there or, better yet, use the Castle Prox= y > framework? The System.Remoting.Proxy stuff is really limited, is a pain > to debug, and we're reinventing stuff that's been done several times > before. No offense Nat :) > > Jim > > > > > |
|
From: Jim A. <JA...@th...> - 2006-05-26 13:57:10
|
As the subject says. The fix and tests are attached. I seem to remember fixing some very similar bugs in NMock 1 - can't we just re-use the proxy code from there or, better yet, use the Castle Proxy framework? The System.Remoting.Proxy stuff is really limited, is a pain to debug, and we're reinventing stuff that's been done several times before. No offense Nat :) Jim |
|
From: Charlie P. <ch...@po...> - 2006-05-25 16:29:37
|
Hi Guys, > On 5/24/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > > Hi Charlie (and nmock-2 dev). I have no problem with this. > However, > > Joe has started to factor out the constraints/matchers from various > > projects (jMock, nMock, etc) into a new project that is > intended, one > > day, to be shared between them and other uses. Joe: could Charlie > > join or use that? > > I'd love for Charlie to get involved. At the moment there is > literally nothing there on the .NET side (I wanted to get the > Java version released first) but if there are volunteers to > get involved, I'm all for it. We're using the NUnitLite project as our base for experimenting with the new Assert syntax. I was initially planning to do something similar to what you have from scratch, to avoid license and distribution issues. But it does seem silly, with all the effort that has gone into it already. Where's this all happening? Is there some description of where you're drawing the boundaries? Charlie |
|
From: Joe W. <jo...@tr...> - 2006-05-25 11:55:30
|
On 5/24/06, Nat Pryce <nat...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Charlie (and nmock-2 dev). I have no problem with this. However, > Joe has started to factor out the constraints/matchers from various > projects (jMock, nMock, etc) into a new project that is intended, one > day, to be shared between them and other uses. Joe: could Charlie > join or use that? I'd love for Charlie to get involved. At the moment there is literally nothing there on the .NET side (I wanted to get the Java version released first) but if there are volunteers to get involved, I'm all for it. -j |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-05-25 06:15:45
|
Hi Charlie (and nmock-2 dev). I have no problem with this. However, Joe has started to factor out the constraints/matchers from various projects (jMock, nMock, etc) into a new project that is intended, one day, to be shared between them and other uses. Joe: could Charlie join or use that? As for licensing, NMock2 is under a BSD style of license. Personally, I prefer copyleft licenses because they are more business friendly and protect end users, but I'm not sure how copyleft and BSD can be combined. --Nat. On 5/25/06, Charlie Poole <ch...@po...> wrote: > Hi Nat, > > I'd like to have an Assert.That syntax for both NUnit and NUnitLite. If w= e > can use your project's code, I'd as soon do that. Otherwise, we'll just b= e > inspired by you. :-) > > For NUnitLite - which would use it first - we would need to add the relev= ant > source files to our project. For NUnit, depending on when you go to a ful= l > release, we could either do it the same way or follow up with the > long-standing plan to replace our mock framework with NMock. > > How do you guys feel this would work in terms of licensing? I read the > thread where you were discussing a license and I never saw anyone actuall= y > answer the question of what you wanted to achieve with the license you > chose. BTW, NUnitLite will be copyleft - there's even a good chance it wi= ll > be GPL or LGPL. NUnit will stay what it is, at least until we do a fresh > start with 3.0. > > Feel free to take this to your discussion list if you like. > > Charlie > > > |
|
From: Joe W. <jo...@tr...> - 2006-05-09 14:04:46
|
On 5/9/06, Mike Mason <mg...@es...> wrote: > Sounds like a go to me -- Joe could you repoint whatever needs repointing= ? Done. May take a few hours to propegate. |
|
From: Mike M. <mg...@es...> - 2006-05-09 02:28:57
|
On 5/6/06, Steve Freeman <ste...@m3...> wrote: > > Is there anything on the old site we need to keep -- worth putting a > back-link in? All the old stuff is, as far as I'm aware, on the new site under a "1.xdocumentation" section. It was pretty much just the one page with docs on it and we've still got that. Sounds like a go to me -- Joe could you repoint whatever needs repointing? Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Steve F. <ste...@m3...> - 2006-05-06 06:45:06
|
Is there anything on the old site we need to keep -- worth putting a back-link in? Otherwise, go for it. S. On 5 May 2006, at 23:45, Mike Mason wrote: > On 5/4/06, Joe Walnes <jo...@tr...> wrote: > When would you like me to switch http://nmock.org over to the new > site? > > Well, basically once people here give the new one their blessing. I > think it's pretty complete, contains the NMock 1.x docs, so is good > to go as a replacement for the existing site. > > Nat? Steve? Anyone else? > > Cheers, > Mike. |
|
From: Mike M. <mg...@es...> - 2006-05-05 22:45:57
|
On 5/4/06, Joe Walnes <jo...@tr...> wrote: > > When would you like me to switch http://nmock.org over to the new site? > Well, basically once people here give the new one their blessing. I think it's pretty complete, contains the NMock 1.x docs, so is good to go as a replacement for the existing site. Nat? Steve? Anyone else? Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Joe W. <jo...@tr...> - 2006-05-04 14:41:48
|
> I've created a first release candidate for NMock2, uploaded it to > SourceForge, and updated the website to reflect this. If you look at the = SF > website you'll see the new changes: > > http://nmock.sourceforge.net/ When would you like me to switch http://nmock.org over to the new site? |
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-05-04 09:57:36
|
There's an open-source GUI tool called Releaseforge for uploading releases to sourceforge. It might be possible to rip out the guts of that into a command-line tool. As for RC1... hurrah! There are some patches that were submitted to the mailing list or SF issue tracker. Have they been applied? --Nat. On 5/3/06, Mike Roberts <mik...@gm...> wrote: > On 02/05/06, Mike Mason <mg...@es...> wrote: > > > > It seems like it'd be great for us to use Cruise builds directly as the > > stuff we release on SourceForge as file downloads. Does anyone have > > experience with this or know about any gotchas? > > For CCNet's own releases we always just grab one of the builds, then > upload them manually using the SF file release system as normal. I > have tried a couple of the automated SF upload libraries but they > suck. > > Remember to give your file releases on SF different filenames for > different versions otherwise it will get unhappy. Apparently they > don't create new directories for new releases. > > Mike > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job ea= sier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronim= o > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid=120709&bid&3057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > NMock-two-dev mailing list > NMo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-two-dev > |
|
From: Mike R. <mik...@gm...> - 2006-05-03 23:06:58
|
On 02/05/06, Mike Mason <mg...@es...> wrote: > > It seems like it'd be great for us to use Cruise builds directly as the > stuff we release on SourceForge as file downloads. Does anyone have > experience with this or know about any gotchas? For CCNet's own releases we always just grab one of the builds, then upload them manually using the SF file release system as normal. I have tried a couple of the automated SF upload libraries but they suck. Remember to give your file releases on SF different filenames for different versions otherwise it will get unhappy. Apparently they don't create new directories for new releases. Mike |
|
From: Mike M. <mg...@es...> - 2006-05-02 20:25:16
|
Thanks for that Jon. I adapted the patch a bit to use the CCNetLabel property directly, rather than via an environment variable, and updated the names of the zip files too. The CCNet live builds seem to have updated too, so we have sexy filenames: http://ccnetlive.thoughtworks.com/NMock2-Builds/37/ It seems like it'd be great for us to use Cruise builds directly as the stuff we release on SourceForge as file downloads. Does anyone have experience with this or know about any gotchas? Thanks, Mike. |
|
From: Mike M. <mg...@es...> - 2006-05-02 17:35:23
|
I've created a first release candidate for NMock2, uploaded it to SourceForge, and updated the website to reflect this. If you look at the SF website you'll see the new changes: http://nmock.sourceforge.net/ I also tagged the CVS source that I built this from so we don't lose track of what's out there. In order to move forward and get to a final release, what stuff is outstanding? Off the top of my head, I think we have: Features for users: - strongly name and sign assemblies Stuff for the dev team: - add a real "build dist" target that can version and sign assemblies - add a "website deploy" target that can build and upload the website (I did the build manually, it's not hard but every manual step is a mistake waiting to happen) Any other stuff we need to do to head towards 2.0? Cheers, Mike. |
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2006-04-19 11:48:59
|
Has anyone on the team evaluated my patch to NMock2 that I submitted a couple of weeks ago? If it was rejected could someone tell me why? |
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2006-04-06 20:43:56
|
On 3/29/06, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote:
>
> I've got a patch to submit, but frankly I have no idea of how to go=20
> about doing it. Here's the issue that I've run across and implemented
> a solution for. With the latest get from CVS all the tests, including
my new one pass.
>
> Here's the situation
>
> typeof(ICloneable).IsAssignableFrom(myCloneableObject)
> should be true if myClonableObject implements ICloneable
>
> [Test]
> public void MockObjectsPassIsAssignableFrom()
> {
> Assert.IsTrue(
> typeof(ICloneable).IsAssignableFrom(
> new
> Mockery().NewMock<ICloneable>().GetType()));
> }
>
> This test fails because the GetType() returns the _TransparentProxy=20
> type which does not implement the interface.
>
> I've reimplemented the way MockObjects are created so that this test=20
> will pass, all the other tests work and I'm ready to submit. However,
> having absolutely no clue as to how to go about doing this I'm stuck.
>=20
-----Original Message-----
From: nmo...@li...
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Nat
Pryce
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 3:42 PM
To: nmo...@li...
Subject: Re: [NMock2-Dev] Another try at my patch
Can you describe what it does?
|
|
From: Nat P. <nat...@gm...> - 2006-04-06 20:41:43
|
Can you describe what it does? --Nat On 4/6/06, Steve Mitcham <Ste...@ty...> wrote: > Here is hopefully a smaller version of the patch. The change is not > very complicated but the diff tool apparently didn't like the save from > visual studio. > > The MockObject.cs class goes in the src/NMock2 directory. > The MockObjectFactory.cs class goes in the internal directory. > > > |
|
From: Steve M. <Ste...@ty...> - 2006-04-06 19:57:57
|
Here is hopefully a smaller version of the patch. The change is not very complicated but the diff tool apparently didn't like the save from visual studio. =20 The MockObject.cs class goes in the src/NMock2 directory. The MockObjectFactory.cs class goes in the internal directory. |
9 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
