Probably a question you would need to put to the masses on your blog.
I'm not sure I've been a Rhino user long to answer for the general
case.
>From my personal standpoint though, even the initial requirements I
was approaching from the standpoint of this being an option to turn on
rather than the default behavior. Null is certainly the default value
for an object so to have objects start behaving differently might
cause problems (or hide them) for some, like if you're using null as a
check for a conditional. I would say that preserving the initial
behavior and enabling this behavior for all methods (including the
ignored tests) as an option would be the way to go, that way your
backwards compat for all the people who don't care about this and the
people that do care can turn it on.
On Oct 22, 10:43 am, "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, I applied the patch, but there are a couple of things that bother me.
>
> WillGetSameInstanceOfRecursedMockForGenerateMockStatic &
> WillGetSameInstanceOfRecursedMockInReplayMode
>
> This is basically the behavior of the mock object when we haven't set an
> expectation. It default to null.
> Should it do that? Is null the expected value?
>
> The user can expect that using:
>
> var mock = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IMyService>();
> mock.Expect(x=>x.Identity);
> IIdentity i1 = mock.Identity;
>
> If we want to support this:
> Expect.Call(mockService.Identity.Name).Return("foo");
>
> We need to change the way Call is behaving, to a property that returns a
> delegate with a side effect. It is possible, but not really fun.
> Is this something we want?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:58 PM, webpaul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ok, I left the code as 2.0 syntax and uploaded
> > RecursiveMocksSameObjectInstance.patch
>
> > Couple comments:
>
> > Each item in the DependentMocks list has an array of ImplementedTypes
> > - I don't understand why that is an array, but am searching the array
> > just to be safe.
>
> > If there are multiple methods/properties with the same return type, I
> > think this will return the same instance for those as well. I would
> > think that would not be desired but wanted to check here before trying
> > to go any further with that.
>
> > On Oct 17, 6:07 am, "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Did I says thanks for doing that already?
>
> > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Jason Meckley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >wrote:
>
> > > > I don't think there is an official position on this since Rhino is
> > > > very organic in nature. I like the rule of thumb. If the feature is
> > > > for AAA syntax than the code and supporting test can be written
> > > > specifically for 3.5. If the feature is available for 2.0 then I
> > > > would write a test using 2.0 syntax.
>
> > > > If the code doesn't compile for 2.0 then someone (usually me) will
> > > > update the syntax so it's compatible for 2.0. If you do have a test
> > > > which is 3.5 syntax specific. the simples solution for backwards
> > > > compatibility is to surround the entire file with an precompile
> > > > statement like this. the statements are case sensative
>
> > > > #if DONTET35
> > > > using ...
>
> > > > public class
> > > > {
> > > > ...tests go here
> > > > }
> > > > #end if
>
> > > > On Oct 16, 10:51 pm, webpaul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > After walking away from it for a few days was able to get in just 10
> > > > > or 15 minutes when I came back. I've got it returning the same
> > > > > instance now and not breaking any of the existing tests. The first
> > > > > test worked only because it was returning null. :) So ignore that.
>
> > > > > Is it ok to use LINQ in Rhino mocks or are you still supporting .NET
> > > > > 2.0? I have some foreach statements I wouldn't mind using a LINQ
> > query
> > > > > for. Change was made in TryCreateReturnValue in Impl/RecordMockState
>
> > > > > [Test]
> > > > > [Ignore("Not supported in replay mode")]
> > > > > public void WillGetSameInstanceOfRecursedMockInReplayMode()
> > > > > {
> > > > > //RhinoMocks.Logger = new
> > > > > TraceWriterExpectationLogger(true, true, true);
>
> > > > > MockRepository mocks = new MockRepository();
> > > > > var mock = mocks.DynamicMock<IMyService>();
> > > > > mocks.Replay(mock);
>
> > > > > IIdentity i1 = mock.Identity;
> > > > > IIdentity i2 = mock.Identity;
>
> > > > > Assert.AreSame(i1, i2);
> > > > > Assert.IsNotNull(i1);
> > > > > }
>
> > > > > [Test]
> > > > > public void
> > > > > WillGetSameInstanceOfRecursedMockWhenNotInReplayMode()
> > > > > {
> > > > > //RhinoMocks.Logger = new
> > > > > TraceWriterExpectationLogger(true,true,true);
>
> > > > > var mock = new
> > MockRepository().DynamicMock<IMyService>();
>
> > > > > IIdentity i1 = mock.Identity;
> > > > > IIdentity i2 = mock.Identity;
>
> > > > > Assert.AreSame(i1, i2);
> > > > > Assert.IsNotNull(i1);
> > > > > }
>
> > > > > On Oct 10, 7:16 am, webpaul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Simon is certainly right in that I've bit off a bigger piece than I
> > > > > > thought I was. I've only used Rhino Mocks in a few limited ways and
> > > > > > didn't realize there was more to it, so clearly I need to take some
> > > > > > more time to understand things. Seems like the style here is to go
> > > > > > away, finish a problem and come back instead of talking about it
> > while
> > > > > > working on it. So I'll spend some more time understanding things
> > and
> > > > > > see what I can do then.
>
> > > > > > On Oct 10, 6:41 am, "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2008/10/10/recursive-mocking.aspx
>
> > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:32 AM, webpaul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Regarding
>
> > > >http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2008/10/08/rhino-mocks-challenge-imple.
> > ..
> > > > > > > > :
>
> > > > > > > > Do you expect that Identity is not null in this test and should
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > an implementation? If so, I'm curious whether you expect
> > changes to
> > > > > > > > Castle.DynamicProxy.ProxyGenerator or not. In the below test
> > > > > > > > mockService.Identity is null and gives an exception as such. Do
> > you
> > > > > > > > expect that and want that fixed or am I missing something?
>
> > > > > > > > public interface ISomeInterface
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > string Name { get; set; }
> > > > > > > > }
>
> > > > > > > > public interface IMyService
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > ISomeInterface Identity { get; set;}
> > > > > > > > }
>
> > > > > > > > [TestFixture]
> > > > > > > > public class FluentMocksTests
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > [Test]
> > > > > > > > public void CanCallSomeRandomInterfaceProperty()
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > var mockService =
> > > > > > > > MockRepository.GenerateMock<IMyService>();
> > > > > > > > Expect.Call(mockService.Identity.Name
> > ).Return("foo");
> > > > > > > > Assert.AreEqual("foo", mockService.Identity.Name);
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > }- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Rhino Tools Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
