I suspect what was meant was more that 'method X should never be called* in the specific scenario being exercised in this specific test*' rather than a more blanket statement that 'method X should never be called'. I'm suspecting what's meant is more along the lines of "when A, B, C are true, the ChargeCreditCard() method should not be invoked" (right --?)
Steve Bohlen [email protected] http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com http://twitter.com/sbohlen On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 5:01 AM, bill richards <[email protected] > wrote: > For my two cents' worth .... this would only ever be of any use in the > situation whereby one is retro-fitting tests. > > If one develops in a TDD manner, this no longer becomes a requirement. > > Retro-fitted "unit tests" are good/bad, good because at last the code > is being tested, but bad because you usually end up testing the > implementation rather than the requirement. How can it possibly be a > requirement that "method X should never be called", if that were a > real requirement, then one should never write the method. > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
