Sure, looks good to me. Which objects were you thinking we should
JMock, and which should we use Shale Test or extensions of Shale Test?
-- Adam
On 7/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well,
what I meant was that with JMock I can do stuff like
mock.expects(atLeastOnce()).method(m).with(...)
.will( onConsecutiveCalls(
returnValue(10),
returnValue(20),
throwException(new IOException("end of stream")) ) );
Instead of writing/programming to much logic into the mocks.
-Matthias
On 7/5/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthias,
>
> Could you say a little more about what sort of intelligence
> you need in the mocks? For more "intelligent" mocks, I
> usually subclass the base test ones (e.g., the MExternalContext
> class over in the renderkit test package).
>
> I'm happy with using jmock for objects like listeners, converters,
> validators, where we're trying to test if our components are
> correctly calling these objects.
>
> -- Adam
>
> On 7/4/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hey devs,
> >
> > today I committed some stuff I did on the mock overhaul bransch.
> > These things work out of the box with shale-test 1.0.2;
> > (still some clean ups needed)
> >
> > Now, I *must* uses 1.0.3-SNAPSHOT (only on my box), b/c of a fixed
> > "bug" in shale.
> > However, I am also at that stage, where I need more *inteligent* mocks
> > that only "dummy objects".
> >
> > I'd like to introduce jmock also for stuff like converters and
validators.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Happy independenc day :)
> > (damn that Italy brought down my feelings...)
> >
> > -Matthias
> >
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
Aechterhoek 18
48282 Emsdetten
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
