On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Matt Franklin <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I'll look at it...maybe I broke something. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Erin Noe-Payne < > > [email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Building rave-core > > >> > > >> Running org.apache.rave.portal.service.impl.DefaultCategoryServiceTest > > >> Tests run: 6, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.009 > > sec > > >> <<< FAILURE! > > >> Running > org.apache.rave.portal.service.impl.DefaultNewAccountServiceTest > > >> DEBUG: > org.apache.rave.portal.service.impl.DefaultNewAccountServiceTest > > - > > >> Expected failure of account creation due to duplicate name > > >> DEBUG: > org.apache.rave.portal.service.impl.DefaultNewAccountServiceTest > > - > > >> Expected failure of account creation due to duplicate email > > >> > > > > > Ok, I broke this. I know why it broke but I don't have a good solution to > > make this test viable again so any ideas would be great. The change I > made > > was to the DefaultCategoryService to return the category returned from > the > > Repository instead of the category passed in. This was done for the major > > reason that previously it was just returning the category passed in which > > didn't have an ID which was a major problem. So now it returns the actual > > saved category with the ID. > > > > The reason the test broke is because it's testing for all sorts of > > attributes that are set by the service. Under normal circumstances these > > would all be returned from the repository but with the Mock repository > it's > > just returning a super basic object. Does anyone know of a way to mock a > > method so I could take in the object passed in, modify it and send it > back > > out instead of returning a static object? > > > > Look at EasyMock.andAnswer(IAnswer<T> answer); > Perfect, test is re-enabled. > > > > > > For now I'm going to comment out the test so that the compile doesn't > fail. > > > > Chris > > >
