Rafael == Rafael Garcia-Suarez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rafael BTW, isn't the habit to post to c.l.p.announce a bit deprecated now ?
Not at all. More people should do it. Don't remove it.
Either that, or entertain a proposal to cancel the group.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge
hi chromatic :)
given being pointed toward Test::MockObject::Extends last time I decided to
rework my tests to use it instead of a dozen local overrides. I immediately
ran into a little snag.
I want to override IO::Socket::INET so that a class calling it's constructor
will use my mocked
my $mock = Test::MockObject-new('IO::Socket::INET');
$mock-fake_new('IO::Socket::INET')
-set_false('connected')
-mock('error', sub { 'localerror' });
the goal being that when my class calls IO::Socket::INET-new($args) that it
fails, returning my error string.
well,
It's your understanding. You're not mocking the class as a whole.
You're mocking an instance. If it helps, think of prototype-based
programming, where you don't inherit from classes, you inherit from
other objects and selectively override or add methods on the new
objects.
hmm, ok, I'll
On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 11:24, Geoffrey Young wrote:
Test::MockObject is clearly object/instance based.
Test::MockObject::Extends is documented to mock either an object or the
class as a whole. if that's not the case that is fine (I guess ;), but then
I'm very confused what value passing a
The docs may be misleading, especially as there's code in
Test::MockObject that really should live in something like
Test::MockModule or Test::MockPackage, neither of which exist yet.
The important point is that you always have to work with the object
returned from
