This is the thing, I don't want the objects to act different at all. I
want the objects to always use one type of equality, but using Rhino
Mocks as is will use refernce equality by default.
So, say I have a Mock service MyService and I can say something like:
[Test]
public void MyTest()
{
var objectUnderTest =
NewObjectUnderTest().WithProperty1("value1").Build(); // Using a
builder
objectUnderTest.MyService = MockMyService; // Setup in TestSetup
MockMyService.Expect(() => s =>
s.SomeMethodCall(objectUnderTest));
// do test
objectUnderTest.TestMethod(); // Changes Property1 to 'value2'
then calls SomeMethodCall
}
So, doing it this way works, but doesn't really tell me anything. What
I really want to do is something like:
[Test]
public void MyTest()
{
var objectUnderTest =
NewObjectUnderTest().WithProperty1("value1").Build(); // Using a
builder
objectUnderTest.MyService = MockMyService; // Setup in TestSetup
MockMyService.Expect(() => s =>
s.SomeMethodCall(NewObjectUnderTest().WithProperty1("value2").Build()));
// do test
objectUnderTest.TestMethod();
}
And then have Rhino mocks use my version of equals but I don't want to
have to say use this contraint all over the place.
Does this make sense?
So, what I am looking for is way to change the default implementation
of equals within Rhino mocks, such that I don't have to change a line
in my tests, maybe in my test setups.
On Jun 21, 3:44 pm, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote:
> I admit to some confusion about why you're trying to have objects behave one
> way (with value equality) when under test but not when in production
> (presumably reverting to their default reference equality). This seems to
> me to be at best confusing and worst rendering your tests mostly useless.
>
> Can you expand a bit on the context of why you would even want this in your
> tests (as I am very curious)?
>
> Steve Bohlen
> [email protected]http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.comhttp://twitter.com/sbohlen
>
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Dewy <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > In our tests we use Value Equality on our objects to check that they
> > have the same values rather than being the same object.
> > When we set up expectations we have gotten around this by making all
> > our objects be Value Objects (via base class and override of Equals)
> > which we don't really want in the production code.
>
> > I see that there is a way to get around this by creating new
> > constraints where we can do as we see fit.
> > What I am really looking for is a way to override ALL equality for all
> > mocks, such that we don't have to say on every Expect(...) that we
> > want to use a custom constraint, say some way to override this when we
> > first create the MockRepository?
> > Is there a way already to do this?
>
> > --
> > 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]<rhinomocks%[email protected]>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rhinomocks?hl=en.
--
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.
