NMock3 Discussions Rss Feed

New Post: Horrifyingly Noobish Question

rossentj — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 17:34:29 GMT

Thanks for the tip, but our benevolent overlords have made it academic: NMock is not approved software, so we're using Moq.

New Post: Horrifyingly Noobish Question

jim4u — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 12:46:24 GMT

Tried using the mock.MockObject property?

i.e.,

IRestServiceClient client = new RestServiceClient((IRestRequestBuilderFactory)restRequestBuilderFactory.MockObject);

New Post: MockStyle.Transparent not working?

brianFaires — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:30:03 GMT

I wanted to ask this publicly before opening up an issue, but it appears to me that MockStyle.Transparent is not working as designed. I'm currently using it to mock a class, then stub out single functions of that class (tried with and without the abstract modifier on the class). Each function I'm stubbing is public, and I've tried with and without the virtual modifier.

The problem I'm seeing is that even after stubbing a method, the underlying implementation is still executed. The return value, however, is the one specified in my Stub.Out.Method command. So what I observe is that my tests pass, but the underlying implementation throws all kinds of errors when it's executed. Here's a simple example:

MockFactory mocks;
Mock<Database> dbMock = mocks.CreateMock<Database>(MockStyle.Transparent);
dbMock.Stub.Out.Method(x => x.WriteData(null).WithAnyArguments().WillReturn("customReturnVal");
Assert.AreEqual("customReturnVal", dbMock.WriteData(null));

The test passes, but the actual implementation of WriteData(null) is executed! Is there something I'm likely to be missing? Please let me know if more info is desired, thanks.

New Post: Compiling NMock 3.0 RTM

Cygon — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:19:23 GMT

Sorry, seems like I wasn't subscribed to this thread and didn't see the replies.

@alaendle: Nope. Sorry, I'm not even looking for a "solution" right now since I don't see having two NMock DLLs as a problem. I doubt there even is a way to avoid that since you can't put InternalsVisibleTo() to a strong-named assembly in a weak-named one and vice versa.

@deftware: I think I used xbuild on Mono 2.6 or 2.8. I'm currently running Mono 2.10.5 and there are 3 compilation errors, one seems trivial and the other two are probably due to a missing reference to System.Configuration.dll. Shouldn't be too hard to fix :)

New Post: Horrifyingly Noobish Question

rossentj — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 23:30:07 GMT

Sorry for the confusion - I assigned factory to a var named restRequestBuilderFactory as part of a failed debugging attempt.

New Post: Horrifyingly Noobish Question

rossentj — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 23:27:30 GMT

I can't figure out why I'm getting a cast exception on this line:

            IRestServiceClient client = new RestServiceClient((IRestRequestBuilderFactory)restRequestBuilderFactory);

The mock is declared here:

private Mock<IRestRequestBuilderFactory> factory;

and created in the SetUp method:

factory = mockFactory.CreateMock<IRestRequestBuilderFactory>();

I must be missing something fundamental: if a mock can't be cast to the interface it's supposedly mocking, what kind of a mock is it?

I'm using NMock3 with Visual Studio 2008, so I can't run the tutorial. I can't find any other documentation online, including the legendary NMock3 cheat sheet.

Complete listing:

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
using GPICore.Repository.WebService;
using NMock2;
using NUnit.Framework;

namespace NorthernTrust.GPI.Home.Test.UnitTest.Repository.WebService
{

    public class NMockTempTest
    {
        private static readonly RestResourceType ResourceType = RestResourceType.SplashMessage;
        private static readonly RestResourceMethod Method = RestResourceMethod.GET;

        private MockFactory mockFactory;
        private Mock<IRestRequest> request;
        private Mock<IRestRequestBuilderFactory> factory;
        private Mock<IRestRequestBuilder> builder;

        [SetUp]
        public void Setup()
        {
            mockFactory = new MockFactory();
            request = mockFactory.CreateMock<IRestRequest>();
            factory = mockFactory.CreateMock<IRestRequestBuilderFactory>();
            Assert.NotNull(factory);
            builder = mockFactory.CreateMock<IRestRequestBuilder>();
        }

        [Test]
        public void TheServiceBuildsTheRequest()
        {
            factory.Expects.One.MethodWith(f => f.GetBuilder()).WillReturn(builder as IRestRequestBuilder);

            builder.Expects.One.MethodWith(b => b.ResourceType(ResourceType))
                .WillReturn(builder as IRestRequestBuilder);
            builder.Expects.One.MethodWith(b => b.Method(Method))
                .WillReturn(builder as IRestRequestBuilder);
            builder.Expects.One.MethodWith(b => b.Build()).WillReturn(request as IRestRequest);

            var restRequestBuilderFactory = factory;
            Assert.NotNull(restRequestBuilderFactory);
            IRestServiceClient client = new RestServiceClient((IRestRequestBuilderFactory)restRequestBuilderFactory);

            client.Get(ResourceType, "");
            mockFactory.VerifyAllExpectationsHaveBeenMet();
        }
    }
}



The error message:

TheServiceBuildsTheRequest : Failed

System.InvalidCastException : Unable to cast object of type 'NMock2.Mock`1[GPICore.Repository.WebService.IRestRequestBuilderFactory]' to type 'GPICore.Repository.WebService.IRestRequestBuilderFactory'.

at NorthernTrust.GPI.Home.Test.UnitTest.Repository.WebService.NMockTempTest.TheServiceBuildsTheRequest() in NMockTempTest.cs: line 44

New Post: Compiling NMock 3.0 RTM

alaendle — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:33:15 GMT

Hi Cygon,

have you finally found a solution how you can avoid exposing Castle.* namespaces in your assembly without having the problem to distinguish between assemblies with/without strong name?

Br,

Andreas

New Post: Using matchers

isaiahp — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:51:56 GMT

It would be nice if we could specify expectations as mockCar.Expects.One.Method(x => x.Print(With(new CarMatcher(car)) ) similar to jmock2

jim4u wrote:

No complaints anymore.

I can use null in the lambda expression like this: this.mockCar.Expects.One.Method(x => x.Print(null).With(new CarMatcher(car));

I figure it is okay to use either use null or default(Car) along with matchers.

i

New Post: Setting return value is mandatory?

jim4u — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 06:47:43 GMT

Hello,

NMock.IncompleteExpectationException: You have to set the return value for method 'ListTeacherSignatures' on 'resultChoiceModel' mock.

I have written an expectation on a method in a mock object that actually returns a value, but I have not specified a 'With' or 'MethodWith'. I usually do this when the method itself is not created. I write a failing test for it, create the method, make it pass and then write expectations on what should happen if that method returns some value. This exception forces me to specify the return value at the beginning itself.

Is this by design because it is a good practice or..?

Regards,

Jim

New Post: Silverlight support

jim4u — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 06:43:54 GMT

I have not worked on SilverLight yet, this was for a colleague. I have passed on this link to him.

Thanks,

Jim

New Post: Mocking members

jim4u — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:32:28 GMT

Hello,

I'm sorry for the rather late reply.

As I said, it would be nice if Stub of a type will automatically create stubs of member properties also. No, setting of properties don't need to be taken care of. We just want to avoid creating stubs of member properties and therefore operations on the members of the properties. I don't know if we need to do anything about method calls.

I don't understand when you say that <Stub may also go away because a Mock<T> created by using the MockStyle.Default because it supports stubbing automatically.>. What if we don't care about any interactions with a mock object? Then, we can create a mock of that object by specifying MockStyle.Stub. If we use MockStyle.Default, we have to write code to Stub out interaction with each member like you have done.

Jim

New Post: Mocking members

pwolfe — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:09:59 GMT

Hi Jim4u,

I am working on some unit tests for the Stub feature in NMock3. Can you give me some examples of how you think it should work and I will get the code shored up. I need to know if you expect to be able to stub event handlers and setting of properties. I can only think of reasons to stub property gets and method calls. I am looking into recursivestub and that looks like it may go away. Stub may also go away because a Mock<T> created by using the MockStyle.Default because it supports stubbing automatically. Here is an example

private Mock<IParentInterface> parentInterfaceMock;
parentInterfaceMock = Factory.CreateMock<IParentInterface>("parentInterfaceMock");


mock.Stub.Out.GetProperty(_ => _.ReadWriteObjectProperty, new Version(1, 2, 3, 4));
Version v = mock.MockObject.ReadWriteObjectProperty;
Version v2 = mock.MockObject.ReadWriteObjectProperty;

Assert.IsTrue(v.Major == 1 && v.Minor == 2 && v.Build == 3 && v.Revision == 4);
Assert.IsTrue(v2.Major == 1 && v2.Minor == 2 && v2.Build == 3 && v2.Revision == 4);

New Post: Silverlight support

pwolfe — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:51:09 GMT

On the downloads page there is now a SL4 version for Silverlight.

Don't forget to help the folks at http://agunit.codeplex.com/ and their Silverlight testing plug-in for Resharper 6. If you aren't using Resharper, I would like to know if you are using the Visual Studio Silverlight testing framework or something else.

If you download the source code for NMock3, there are Silverlight unit tests you can look at.

New Post: Mocking members

jim4u — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 08:28:59 GMT

Hello,

This will save us some work. I create mocks of some objects by using the MockStyle.Stub parameter when I don't really care about the operations done on that object. If that object has properties that are again interface types, for example public IMovable Movable, I have to explicitly create mocks for them too. It would be nice if it can be like MOQ and I won't have to create stubs for the members when I have created a stub of the object.

Can you please let me know what RecursiveStub means?

Jim

New Post: Silverlight support

jim4u — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 08:23:58 GMT

Hello, where can I find it? Is it included in the latest download?

New Post: Mocking members

pwolfe — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:08:12 GMT

Hi Jim4u,

That is what the Stub is supposed to do. I haven't spent much time with it, I have only converted it from what NMock2 did with it. If it is something you are finding lots of uses for, I can look into it.

New Post: Silverlight support

pwolfe — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:05:57 GMT

Jim4u,

Please check out the new Silverlight binary and let me know what you think!

New Post: Mocking members

jim4u — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:11:44 GMT

A colleague showed me how MOQ can create a mock of not only an object, but also the members of that object.

For example, if you have an interface ICar which has a property Controller which is defined as IControllable, then when you create a mock of ICar, MOQ creates a mock automatically for the Controller property too.

Is there any way to achieve a similar behaviour using NMock3? I have tried creating mocks with Stub, RecursiveStub, options...

New Post: Silverlight support

jim4u — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:08:29 GMT

Is there a silverlight version of NMock3? Are we planning this in future?

New Post: Compiling NMock 3.0 RTM

deftware — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 05:12:40 GMT

Greetings Cygon,

I'm trying to build nmock3 using monodevelop 2.2 (the version that comes with Ubuntu 10.04LTS). I've managed to apply the patch, but I'm still having some issues. (The compiler just seems to explode). Can you tell me what version of mono you used to build your patched version?

Thanks,

Peter-Frank Spierenburg.