|
»
« Return to Thread: Mocking dynamic types
Re: Mocking dynamic types
by Nat Pryce
::
Rate this Message:
This isn't something that jMock is designed for.
But, we have had to do that to test jMock itself. Have a look at the
MethodFactory class in the tests. You might be able to adapt that
code to your use.
--Nat
2009/6/27 Julian Hall <jules@...>:
> I'm working on some code at the moment that heavily uses reflection, and as
> such the interfaces of objects that are passed to it are defined more in
> terms of conventions than classes... for example, it can take an object and
> the name of a property of that object and manipulate the property without
> needing to know anything about the class of the object.
>
> As such, I'm finding that the things I need the mock objects in my tests to
> support don't actually conform to any existing classes in my application.
> Instead, I need things like "an object that's a subclass of Entity but has
> a method called getTestProperty returning int" or similar.
> Now, I could just define such a class, then mock it, but this seems like a
> messy solution. It seems to me that as jmock is building classes
> dynamically already, it ought to be possible to extend it reasonably easily
> so that I can request extra methods in the mock objects it creates. But I
> have little idea about how to go about this. Is there a suitable extension
> point already? How would such an extension integrate with the framework?
> I'd appreciate any suggestions.
>
> Jules
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>
>
--
http://www.natpryce.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
But, we have had to do that to test jMock itself. Have a look at the
MethodFactory class in the tests. You might be able to adapt that
code to your use.
--Nat
2009/6/27 Julian Hall <jules@...>:
> I'm working on some code at the moment that heavily uses reflection, and as
> such the interfaces of objects that are passed to it are defined more in
> terms of conventions than classes... for example, it can take an object and
> the name of a property of that object and manipulate the property without
> needing to know anything about the class of the object.
>
> As such, I'm finding that the things I need the mock objects in my tests to
> support don't actually conform to any existing classes in my application.
> Instead, I need things like "an object that's a subclass of Entity but has
> a method called getTestProperty returning int" or similar.
> Now, I could just define such a class, then mock it, but this seems like a
> messy solution. It seems to me that as jmock is building classes
> dynamically already, it ought to be possible to extend it reasonably easily
> so that I can request extra methods in the mock objects it creates. But I
> have little idea about how to go about this. Is there a suitable extension
> point already? How would such an extension integrate with the framework?
> I'd appreciate any suggestions.
>
> Jules
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>
>
--
http://www.natpryce.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
« Return to Thread: Mocking dynamic types
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
