stubbing

问题 I want to create a stub of the following interface: interface IUnitOfWork { void DoInTransaction(Action method); } In the stub object, all I want DoInTransaction to do is run method() . Something like: // pseudo-code unitOfWorkStub.Stub(x => x.DoInTransaction(method)).Do(method()) Is it possible to create this kind of a stub with RhinoMocks? How can this be done? 回答1: use this: unitOfWorkStub.Stub(x => x.DoInTransaction(Arg<Action>.Is.Anything)) .WhenCalled(x => ((Action)x.Arguments[0])());

问题 I want to create a stub of the following interface: interface IUnitOfWork { void DoInTransaction(Action method); } In the stub object, all I want DoInTransaction to do is run method() . Something like: // pseudo-code unitOfWorkStub.Stub(x => x.DoInTransaction(method)).Do(method()) Is it possible to create this kind of a stub with RhinoMocks? How can this be done? 回答1: use this: unitOfWorkStub.Stub(x => x.DoInTransaction(Arg<Action>.Is.Anything)) .WhenCalled(x => ((Action)x.Arguments[0])());

问题 I want to create a stub of the following interface: interface IUnitOfWork { void DoInTransaction(Action method); } In the stub object, all I want DoInTransaction to do is run method() . Something like: // pseudo-code unitOfWorkStub.Stub(x => x.DoInTransaction(method)).Do(method()) Is it possible to create this kind of a stub with RhinoMocks? How can this be done? 回答1: use this: unitOfWorkStub.Stub(x => x.DoInTransaction(Arg<Action>.Is.Anything)) .WhenCalled(x => ((Action)x.Arguments[0])());

问题 I have a method i'd like to stub but it has a lot of parameters. How can i avoid mocking all parameters but still stub the method. Ex: //Method to stub public void myMethod(Bar bar, Foo foo, FooBar fooBar, BarFoo barFoo, .....endless list of parameters..); 回答1: I don't quite follow what problem you're having using Mockito. Assuming you create a mock of the interface that contains your myMethod() method, you can then verify only the parameters to the method that you are interested in. For

问题 I have a method i'd like to stub but it has a lot of parameters. How can i avoid mocking all parameters but still stub the method. Ex: //Method to stub public void myMethod(Bar bar, Foo foo, FooBar fooBar, BarFoo barFoo, .....endless list of parameters..); 回答1: I don't quite follow what problem you're having using Mockito. Assuming you create a mock of the interface that contains your myMethod() method, you can then verify only the parameters to the method that you are interested in. For

问题 I'm trying to stub this getKeyFromStream method, using the 'any' matchers. I've tried being more explicit and less explicit (anyObject()), but it seems like no matter what I try, this stub will not return the fooKey in my unit test. I'm wondering if it is because it is protected or there is something else I'm missing or doing incorrectly. I have other when/then statements throughout the tests that are working but for some reason here, it is not. Note: The getKeyFromStream generally uses a

问题 Excuse if this is a silly question, I am new to mocking. I am able to use mocha to do things like: person.expects(:first_name).returns('David') How can I mock a nested object? Say I have a Product that belongs to a Person and I want to get the first name of that person. In my app I might do it like this: product.person.first_name How would I get the same result using a mock? 回答1: as an alternative to shingara's answer, you could use mocha's any_instance method "which will detect calls to any

问题 My question about the concept of unit testing: class A { public void m1() { // code m2(); //code } public void m2() { //some code } } According to best practices, how should I test the m1 method? Is the unit the class or is the unit the method? My view - I should test m2 separately and I shouldn't test m1 and m2 integration. To use my view is hard enough - I should use sophisticated frameworks for testing and use very modern things. According to my sense of unit testing, tests should be

问题 My question about the concept of unit testing: class A { public void m1() { // code m2(); //code } public void m2() { //some code } } According to best practices, how should I test the m1 method? Is the unit the class or is the unit the method? My view - I should test m2 separately and I shouldn't test m1 and m2 integration. To use my view is hard enough - I should use sophisticated frameworks for testing and use very modern things. According to my sense of unit testing, tests should be

问题 I'm attempting to stub File.open in order to test a method I have that reads a CSV file. Here's the model: class BatchTask def import(filename) CSV.read(filename, :row_sep => "\r", :col_sep => ",") end end Here's the spec code: let(:data) { "title\tsurname\tfirstname\rtitle2\tsurname2\tfirstname2\r"} let(:result) {[["title","surname","firstname"],["title2","surname2","firstname2"]] } it "should parse file contents and return a result" do File.stub(:open).with("file_name","rb") { StringIO.new