I agree with Chris...typically I prefer to mock interfaces over class since you don't have to worry about implementation details...
if possible...create an interface. Tim On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Chris Missal <[email protected]>wrote: > That's what I'd do, but I'm not master. :) > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:43 PM, [email protected] < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> By "extracting an interface from the third party class directly" do >> you mean creating a wrapper class which implements an interface which >> defines the methods I'm interested in? >> >> On Jun 18, 11:34 am, Chris Missal <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I think it would be easier to mock if you extracted an interface from >> the >> > third party class directly, rather than another class. This way, you >> don't >> > have to worry about the constructor. >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:29 PM, [email protected] < >> [email protected] >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > wrote: >> > >> > > Yep, I'm not mocking the SUT (although I do admit that I got confused >> > > about this at first too). >> > >> > > Basically, I am wrapping a 3rd party class in my own class so that I >> > > can mock it (since that 3rd party class doesn't implement an interface >> > > which defines the methods I am interested in, neither are the methods >> > > I'm interested in defined as virtual). I'm trying to do it by >> > > implementing the wrapper class as a class with virtual methods (rather >> > > then a normal class without overridable methods but which implements >> > > an interface which defines those methods) - it didn't make sense to me >> > > to have the interface simply for the sake of having it... >> > >> > > On Jun 18, 11:22 am, Chris Missal <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > Since it's a mock, the dependencies shouldn't matter since you'll be >> > > > artificially handling the functionality of the mocked object. >> > >> > > > Be sure that the object you're mocking isn't the class under test, >> > > usually >> > > > you'll mock the dependencies or the classes that the class under >> test (or >> > > > system under test (SUT)) interacts with, are mocked. >> > >> > > > Make sense? This was a bit confusing for me at first. >> > >> > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:14 PM, [email protected] < >> > > [email protected] >> > >> > > > > wrote: >> > >> > > > > Sure does. >> > >> > > > > In fact, it doesn't stop me from doing >> > >> > > > > SomeClass c = MockRepository.CreateMock<SomeClass>(null, null); >> > >> > > > > either (the dependencies of SomeClass shouldn't matter in this >> case >> > > > > since it is just a mock). >> > >> > > > > So this problem is not stopping me from using RhinoMocks to mock >> the >> > > > > class, it's just that this behaviour appears to contradict the >> wiki >> > > > > and as this is my first time mocking a class (I have always mocked >> > > > > interfaces before), I was worried that I was doing something >> wrong... >> > >> > > > > On Jun 18, 11:11 am, Chris Missal <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > > Does it work when you try: >> > >> > > > > > SomeClass c = MockRepository.CreateMock<SomeClass>(a, b); >> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:39 PM, [email protected] >> > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > Hi, >> > >> > > > > > > I'm trying to mock a class that doesn't have a default >> constructor >> > > > > > > (i.e. it has been 'overidden' by a custom constructor which is >> > > > > > > parameterized) which - according to the wiki ( >> > >http://ayende.com/wiki/ >> > > > > > > Rhino%20Mocks%20Mocking%20classes.ashx) - should be possible. >> There >> > > > > > > isn't anything particularly special about what I'm trying to >> do, >> > > > > > > simply something like the following: >> > >> > > > > > > public class SomeClass >> > > > > > > { >> > > > > > > public SomeClass(A a, B b) >> > > > > > > { ... } >> > >> > > > > > > virtual public string SomeMethod() >> > > > > > > { ... } >> > > > > > > } >> > >> > > > > > > [Test] >> > > > > > > public void SomeTest() >> > > > > > > { >> > > > > > > SomeClass c = MockRepository.CreateMock<SomeClass>(); >> > > > > > > ... >> > > > > > > } >> > >> > > > > > > NUnit reports the following error: >> > >> > > > > > > System.MissingMethodException : Can't find a constructor with >> > > matching >> > > > > > > arguments >> > > > > > > ----> System.MissingMethodException : Constructor on type >> > > > > > > 'SomeClass207ade2ffbbc4e7cba459d96ac172bb9' not found. >> > >> > > > > > > cheers! >> > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > Chris Missalhttp://chrismissal.lostechies.com/ >> > >> > > > -- >> > > > Chris Missalhttp://chrismissal.lostechies.com/ >> > >> > -- >> > Chris Missalhttp://chrismissal.lostechies.com/ >> >> > > > -- > Chris Missal > > http://chrismissal.lostechies.com/ > > > > -- Tim Barcz ASPInsider http://timbarcz.devlicio.us http://www.twitter.com/timbarcz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
