Hi, > On Apr 6, 2016, at 6:13 AM, Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2016-04-06 14:51 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <[email protected]>: > 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. > > You right. There was discussion and I made decision :) > Some of people suggest "should got" which is very short version and I like > it. I know it is not completely correct from English perspective but it is > readable enough and understandable.
It is your prerogative :), but “should got" sounds broken :(. > #shouldnt can be good. But usually we not use "should not" assertions. Only > when we really want to deny certain condition we write it such way. In that > cases full form of "should not" feels better for me. > But it is always personal choice. So I made decision. (many my tests uses > "should not" :)) I think “should not" sounds fine like it is. Cheers, Doru > I think I would favor: > mock stub someMessage toReturn: 1000. > or > mock stub someMessage returns: 1000. > > What do you think? > > Same here. > Mocketry is very old and it was always idea of will:. You can also put block > for expected action: > mock stub someMessage will: [#yourResult]. > (mock stub someMessageWith: Any) will: [:arg | arg + 1]. > -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "What is more important: To be happy, or to make happy?"
