You don't need a wrapper class, just an inherited class and extracted
interface.
interface IThirdParty {
void ThirdPartyMethodYouUse();
}
class SubThirdParty : ThirdParty, IThirdParty {
//constructors to match ThirdParty
}
Then you code can just depend on IThirdParty, so you can easily mock them.
The code in SubThirdParty is bare minimal so you don't need to worry about
testing.
HTH
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:43 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/
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
