(Please don't send me personal copies of messages that are sent to the forum; I read via the newsgroup, and it's annoying to also get replies in email when I didn't send an email message.)
"Simon Brunning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 10/12/07, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This means that the Mock object automatically supports any number > > of attributes and methods by any reasonable names; the only setup > > needed beyond creating the instance is to seed it with anything > > you *don't* want returned as a Mock. > > Now *that* is what the OP was talking about - that's not a Mock, > that's a Stub. See <http://tinyurl.com/26hfjd>. Because the minimock.Mock instance is instrumented to emit a message any time one of its attributes is called, that output becomes the playback — which then, using doctest, can be compared against the *expected* sequence of method calls. That seems like it's a Mock to me: intended to assert that a specific sequence of method calls with specific arguments was made on the mock instance. -- \ "I love to go down to the schoolyard and watch all the little | `\ children jump up and down and run around yelling and screaming. | _o__) They don't know I'm only using blanks." -- Emo Philips | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
