Can you create a failing test, I didn't follow this thread too closely On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Shane C <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I've tracked down the code that causes this behavior and it's pretty > deep in the system. ReplayDynamicMockState is the one making the > decision to ignore the extra call and just return the default value > but the problem is that it relies on > MethodRecordBase.GetRecordedExpectationOrNull to return Null for this > behavior. > > The safest place to make a change would appear to be > ReplayDynamicMockState but this doesn't work because it needs an > expectation so it can tell it to return or throw. The problem being > that we don't an expectation since the return of a null expectation is > what triggers this behavior. There appears to be a lot of other code > that all relies on GetRecordedExpectationOrNull so changing it's > behavior seems like an unsafe idea but I don't see how the problem can > be fixed without doing so. > > Look at the else statement in ReplayDynamicMockState.DoMethodCall to > get a better idea of what I mean... > > Thoughts? > > On Feb 17, 1:07 pm, Shane Courtrille <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Haha I know I did.. I was just hoping someone else would have the time > > so I can spend a little bit of my time with my family.. if not.. then > > I shall follow the Ayende method of "Fix the things that bug you" > > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I think that you just vulanteered > > > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Shane C <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >> Agreed. This really does not seem like correct behavior. So who has > > >> time to create & send Ayende a patch? :D > > > > >> On Feb 17, 12:41 am, ssteinegger <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > This also means, that Repeat.Times never makes sense on a dynamic > > >> > mock, because it is the same as Repeat.AtLeast (but doesn't say > this). > > >> > Independent of the syntax, this is not so nice. Repeat.Times (or > Once > > >> > or Never) should always be kind of strict. > > > > >> > On 13 Feb., 15:28, Tim Barcz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > I'll toss in my two cents.... > > > > >> > > If it's a strict mock, should throw an exception.... > > >> > > If it's a dynamic mock this is expected. > > > > >> > > If we start treating the syntax different between strict and > dynamic > > >> > > mocks I > > >> > > think the learning curve goes up. Right now the differences in > > >> > > behavior lie > > >> > > within which mock object you use and NOT the syntax you use on the > > >> > > mock, > > >> > > which is how I personally prefer it. > > > > >> > > Tim > > > > >> > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:23 AM, ssteinegger > <[email protected]> > > >> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > You're right, I didn't say how it _should_ be, just how it > probably > > >> > > > _is_. > > >> > > > But I could be wrong and it's actually a bug. > > > > >> > > > On 13 Feb., 14:30, andreister <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > Yes, but VerifyAllExpectations should address that some method > was > > >> > > > > called *more* than expected. > > > > >> > > > > Otherwise Times(x) should have been called "AtLeast(x)" ! > > > > >> > > > > On Feb 13, 1:58 pm, ssteinegger <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > MockRepository.GenerateMock creates a dynamic mock, which > allows > > >> > > > > > calls > > >> > > > > > that weren't expected. To do this I think you'll need a > strict > > >> > > > > > mock > > >> > > > > > which cannot be created with the static repository. > > > > >> > > > > > On 13 Feb., 10:43, andreister <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > The previous post "Assert # of times a method was called" > > >> > > > > > > brings me > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > > > the following scenario > > > > >> > > > > > > ================================================== > > >> > > > > > > [Test] > > >> > > > > > > public void Test() > > >> > > > > > > { > > >> > > > > > > var foo = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IFoo>(); > > >> > > > > > > foo.Expect(x => x.Bar()).Repeat.Times(5); > > > > >> > > > > > > Boo.Run(foo, 4); > > > > >> > > > > > > foo.VerifyAllExpectations(); > > > > >> > > > > > > } > > > > >> > > > > > > public class Boo > > >> > > > > > > { > > >> > > > > > > public static void Run(IFoo foo, int total) > > >> > > > > > > { > > >> > > > > > > for (int i = 0; i < total; i++) { foo.Bar(); } > > >> > > > > > > } > > > > >> > > > > > > } > > > > >> > > > > > > public interface IFoo > > >> > > > > > > { > > >> > > > > > > void Bar();} > > > > >> > > > > > > ================================================== > > > > >> > > > > > > Obviously, it fails with "Expected #5, Actual #4." > > > > >> > > > > > > However, if we change ".Repeat.Times(5);" to > > >> > > > > > > ".Repeat.Times(2);" it > > >> > > > > > > passes!!? (I would expect a failure with "Expected #2, > Actual > > >> > > > > > > #4.") > > > > >> > > > > > > It looks like "as designed" behavior, since > > >> > > > > > > UnorderedMethodRecorder.DoGetRecordedExpectationOrNull ( > > >> > > >https://rhino- > > > > >> > > > > > > > tools.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/rhino-tools/trunk/rhino-mocks/ > > >> > > > > > > Rhino.Mocks/MethodRecorders/UnorderedMethodRecorder.cs) > relies > > >> > > > > > > on > > >> > > > > > > "triplet.Expectation.CanAcceptCalls" that is NOT updated > for > > >> > > > > > > EVERY > > >> > > > > > > call... But it's quite confusing. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
