Hi,
Nice work!
Just the English does not sound quite well for statements like:
mock should got someMessage
mock should not got anotherMessage.
I know that there was a long discussion about naming these. I do not remember
the outcome, but still I think other alternatives would be better:
mock should haveReceived someMessage.
mock should not haveReceived anotherMessage.
or even
mock shouldnt haveReceived anotherMessage.
Also, for this statement:
mock stub someMessage willReturn: 1000.
I think I would favor:
mock stub someMessage toReturn: 1000.
or
mock stub someMessage returns: 1000.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Doru
> On Apr 6, 2016, at 5:29 AM, Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I am glad to present simplest mocks for Pharo.
> In this version Mocketry is dramatically improved and changed. I try to
> provide most simple way to stub any message to any object and to verify any
> occurred behaviour.
>
> You can read full details in my blog
> http://dionisiydk.blogspot.fr/2016/04/new-version-of-mocketry-30.html
>
> Here is short example:
>
> mock := Mock new.
> mock stub someMessage willReturn: 1000.
>
> mock someMessage should be: 1000.
> mock should got someMessage.
> mock should not got anotherMessage.
>
> rect := 0@0 corner: 2@3.
> rect stub width willReturn: 1000.
>
> rect area should be: 3000 "area = width * height".
> rect should got width.
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com
"Every thing has its own flow."
