Gavin, This IS the solution if one absolutely must mock something which cannot itself be mocked, however, as already pointed out, there is absolutely no reason why one would have to mock this item, the object itself (XElement) is very light-weight, and it is much simpler to instantiate it and populate it with the required data than it is to go through the whole process you have outlined, because of course, your wrapper would need to be properly tested, and in the testing of that you might then find that you absolutely must mock the XElement, and then where do we go? lol.
On May 10, 2:14 pm, Gavin van der Merwe <[email protected]> wrote: > If you need to mock XElement perhaps you could create an XElementDecorator > where the members and properties are set up to use the underlying XElement > as a backing store and then mark the members virtual in the decorator itself > (which would facilitate the ability to mock). This would allow you to do > what you need to do except there is a bit of overhead in converting these > elements to and from the decorator type which could prove to be a pain > altogether. Maybe if you used an implicit operator to convert between > XElement and XElementDecorator that would alleviate some of the overhead but > not all of it. > -- 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.
