You probably want to go the other way, and assert that it was only called once, that would be much easier.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Shane Courtrille <[email protected] > wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
