Shane,
Not following who you were replying to...can you clarify?
Also, summarize your stance on Mocks vs. Stubs.
I *can* assert interaction with a stub, see the test case that was provided
in the first post.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Shane Courtrille
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> This email should have said "No.. you are correct that there is not really
> that much of a difference"
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:42 AM, Shane Courtrille <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No.. and that is the problem. The difference is very much a conceptual
>> thing so it's very important that it be protected. By allowing the
>> assertion of stub calls the usage of stub and mock is diluted.
>>
>> Maybe you can help us understand why someone want to be able to assert
>> stub calls and your view on why this was a good feature to add? Isn't that
>> what a mock is for?
>>
>> Shane
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Because there isn't really much of a difference between the two, and I
>>> got feature request to be able to assert of stub calls.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Shane Courtrille <
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Which to me is the standard difference between the two.
>>>>
>>>> The question is why does the interface for a stub have to support
>>>> operations which are the domain of a mock object? When a new comer looks
>>>> at
>>>> a Stub shouldn't they be able to tell the difference without having to deal
>>>> with the mental baggage of "Hey wait.. a stub looks a lot like a mock to
>>>> me".
>>>>
>>>> Shane
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:15 AM, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The main thing is a concpetual difference.I would use stub if I don't
>>>>> care about what is going to happen
>>>>> I would use a mock if I do care.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Tim Barcz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am working on a presentation and was about to make the assertion,
>>>>>> "stubs can't have expectations set on them". I decide to double check
>>>>>> myself and run the following code and see that I can set expectations.
>>>>>> (Removing the call to logger.Log in the Order method causes the test to
>>>>>> fail).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [TestFixture]
>>>>>> public class Stubs
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> [Test]
>>>>>> public void CreateStub()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> var logger = MockRepository.GenerateStub<ILogger>();
>>>>>>
>>>>>> var svc = new OrderService(logger);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> svc.Order();
>>>>>>
>>>>>> logger.AssertWasCalled(x=>x.Log("hello"));
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> public class OrderService
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> private readonly ILogger logger;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> public OrderService(ILogger logger)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> this.logger = logger;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> public void Order()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> logger.Log("hello");
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> public interface ILogger
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> void Log(string message);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Rhino.Mocks" 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/RhinoMocks?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
