That was what I was thinking.
In case of a MockConverter... well... this guy needs to much logic... IMHO
Ok, than I go this route.
Btw. classes MockFContext (our test clazz) can be removed, but not
committed yet, because of some issue on my box... ;)
-Matthias
On 7/5/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree, for these JMock makes a lot of sense; these are objects
where a Shale Test implementation (even if it existed) wouldn't be
helpful.
-- Adam
On 7/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Shale doesn't contain MockValidator, MockRenderer and mockConverter
> for instance.
> I struggled with these guys yesterday (mostly with MockRenderer).
>
> I am now looking into JMock to get a better idea of it, but looks
> promissing ;)
>
> -Matthias
>
> On 7/5/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sure, looks good to me. Which objects were you thinking we should
> > JMock, and which should we use Shale Test or extensions of Shale Test?
> >
> > -- Adam
> >
> >
> > On 7/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well,
> > >
> > > what I meant was that with JMock I can do stuff like
> > >
> > > mock.expects(atLeastOnce()).method(m).with(...)
> > > .will( onConsecutiveCalls(
> > > returnValue(10),
> > > returnValue(20),
> > > throwException(new IOException("end of stream")) ) );
> > >
> > > Instead of writing/programming to much logic into the mocks.
> > >
> > > -Matthias
> > >
> > > On 7/5/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Matthias,
> > > >
> > > > Could you say a little more about what sort of intelligence
> > > > you need in the mocks? For more "intelligent" mocks, I
> > > > usually subclass the base test ones (e.g., the MExternalContext
> > > > class over in the renderkit test package).
> > > >
> > > > I'm happy with using jmock for objects like listeners, converters,
> > > > validators, where we're trying to test if our components are
> > > > correctly calling these objects.
> > > >
> > > > -- Adam
> > > >
> > > > On 7/4/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey devs,
> > > > >
> > > > > today I committed some stuff I did on the mock overhaul bransch.
> > > > > These things work out of the box with shale-test 1.0.2;
> > > > > (still some clean ups needed)
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, I *must* uses 1.0.3-SNAPSHOT (only on my box), b/c of a fixed
> > > > > "bug" in shale.
> > > > > However, I am also at that stage, where I need more *inteligent*
> mocks
> > > > > that only "dummy objects".
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to introduce jmock also for stuff like converters and
> > > validators.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Happy independenc day :)
> > > > > (damn that Italy brought down my feelings...)
> > > > >
> > > > > -Matthias
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > Aechterhoek 18
> > > 48282 Emsdetten
> > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
> Aechterhoek 18
> 48282 Emsdetten
> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
Aechterhoek 18
48282 Emsdetten
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
