The problem I have with StrictMock is that it seriously breaks the "Assert one thing per test" practice. I have to have an expectation for every single call that occurs against that interface. As soon as I have an interface I make different calls on I am out of luck if I want to follow this practice. I prefer to break things up by using a dynamic mock. The problem is now that I can't also verify that the mock was called the number of times I expect.
Another problem I have is with consistency of interface. DynamicMocks should probably have a seperate interface that only has Repeat.AtLeast() instead of Times since you can't actually trust the Times. On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > Got the failing test, but I would say that this is not a bug, it is a by > design feature.DynamicMock sole reason for being is that it accepts > unexpected calls. > If you want this to work, you need to use StrictMock > > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
