Sorry I'm not sure what you mean "about that" ? On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
