You can change the expectation with dynamic mocks, so it would know about that.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Shane Courtrille <[email protected] > wrote: > That assumes I only call a method once. As soon as I have code that needs > to loop over something and do something with each value it breaks down. I > can setup my test so that I only have one loop iteration and then make sure > that it only occurs once but this still doesn't change the fact that > .Times() can lie on DynamicMocks since it's always AtLeast() > > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
