Sean P. DeNigris wrote > I understand the motivation. My question is how do we create appropriate > hooks so that we don't get into these conflicts?
I don't know yet, I'm open for discussion. Sean P. DeNigris wrote > - anyArgument now inst var of BabyMockTestCase, similar to BmAnyMessage How do you use the anyArgument? The /with:/ is optional, so mock should receive: #a:b:c: accepts a:b:c: with any arguments by default, unless you restrict it with /with:and:and:/. Or did you want something like this? mock a: anyArgument b: exactArgument1 c: exactArgument2 This seems to be a valid need. Sean P. DeNigris wrote > - #does: now optionally takes arguments I rarely use /does/, as far as I remember it is not even documented. I don't know the code behind the test but based on the names it looks like an adapter like thing. (e.g. a thin wrapper above a 3rd party api with not too much logic inside). If this is the case, normally I would test it with integration tests, instead of mocks. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Unifying-Testing-Ideas-tp4726787p4726915.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
