> > Which I understand fully, however, sometimes you want to test that ONLY > certain things happen and the static methods are a really nice way of > reducing lines of code written in tests.
While I understand the need/desire for strict mocks (believe me I do). You can do assertions that something is never called on a dynamic mock which gives you similar behavior. On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Peter Morris <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think it was an explicit decision not to include StrictMock() in the > > syntax as the use of strict mocks is generally frowned upon as it can > lead > > to over specification of tests. > > Which I understand fully, however, sometimes you want to test that ONLY > certain things happen and the static methods are a really nice way of > reducing lines of code written in tests. > > > > (With the source available to you, you can always add this method in your > > own code base whether or not this gets voted up or down.) > > :-) > > I don't like having my own variation of someone else's project, and if the > change was voted down I would have to choose between that and changing my > tests. > > > Pete > ==== > http://mrpmorris.blogspot.com > http://www.AlterEgos.com - Who do you want to be? > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
