Hi Bill,
everything is clear to me now ;-) I totally agree with you that rhinomocks
should focus on AAA (personally I only use new AAA-syntax in my tests), but
on the user side my limited spare time doesn't allow me to really force
such huge changes in Rhino.Mocks - but I'll think maintenance is crucial
for every piece of software which wants to be successful - and I also found
that the partial behavior criticized by hanggoff is strange - I just wanted
to provide some small/simple improvement.
And while Rhino.Mocks project is multi-forked on github nobody is
constrained to use my fork ;-)
Best regards,
Andreas
Am Freitag, 27. April 2012 14:48:32 UTC+2 schrieb bill richards:
>
> Andreas,
>
> I'm not sure if there is anything wrong with the behaviour you are
> expecting. What I mean by "developing against Record/Replay" is really in
> response to your post (included below)
>
> "Hi,
>
> I just commited a patch for this issue - but haven't created a new binary
> release for now."
>
>
> I'm not saying don't do it, or you shouldn't do it or anything like that;
> It's simply that my interest was piqued when I noticed that you had
> committed a code change in the area of Record/Replay; mainly because my
> understanding was that Record/Replay is not really currently a focus of
> attention in Rhino and instead efforts were being put into AAA.
>
> It has been "suggested" on multiple occasions in the past that the
> Record/Replay syntax be either attributed as deprecated, or at least moved
> to an alternate namespace which would show a clear separation of
> functionality between it and AAA. -the later proposal mainly to support
> those establishments who have a large existing investment in Record/Replay
> tests.
>
> It's just a question to help my understanding of the current development
> in Rhino :o)
>
>
>
> On Friday, April 27, 2012 1:26:25 PM UTC+1, haifisch wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> I'm sorry but I think I doesn't get your point. Is something wrong with
>> the behavior hanggoff and I expected? What exactly did you mean by
>> "developing against Record/Replay"?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> Am Freitag, 27. April 2012 12:39:16 UTC+2 schrieb bill richards:
>>>
>>> Just out of interest, but why are we developing against Record/Replay?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 1:38:07 PM UTC, honggoff wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> while tracking down an error in a unit test, I came across some (IMO)
>>>> odd behavior of BackToRecordAll. I boiled it down to the following test
>>>> case:
>>>>
>>>> public interface IDummy
>>>> {
>>>> bool GetValue();
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> [Test]
>>>> public void TestBackTorecordAll()
>>>> {
>>>> MockRepository mock = new MockRepository();
>>>> IDummy test = mock.StrictMock<IDummy>();
>>>>
>>>> using (mock.Unordered())
>>>> {
>>>> Expect.Call(test.GetValue())
>>>> .Return(true)
>>>> .Repeat.AtLeastOnce();
>>>> }
>>>> mock.ReplayAll();
>>>>
>>>> Assert.IsTrue(test.GetValue());
>>>> mock.VerifyAll();
>>>>
>>>> mock.BackToRecordAll(BackToRecordOptions.All);
>>>> Expect.Call(test.GetValue())
>>>> .Return(false)
>>>> .Repeat.AtLeastOnce();
>>>>
>>>> mock.ReplayAll();
>>>> Assert.IsFalse(test.GetValue());
>>>>
>>>> mock.VerifyAll();
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> This test case fails. Is this the expected behavior? If so, why does
>>>> the test succeed, if i remove the mock.Unordered() call?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what BackToRecordAll does. I expected it to
>>>> go back to record mode and reset all expectations.
>>>>
>>>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Rhino.Mocks" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rhinomocks/-/H-nw_ht-cF8J.
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.
