Ayende @ Rahien

Ayende Rahien commented on Rhino Mocks 3.5: A feature to be proud of - seamless Do()

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 06:43:38 GMT

That is already there. It is ugly and unseemly

Daniel Cazzulino commented on Rhino Mocks 3.5: A feature to be proud of - seamless Do()

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 18:06:13 GMT

Wouldn't it be even better if Do had generics overloads to receive the argument types directly too? Like: .Do(x => a); I think that makes the lambda syntax cleaner. It also converges with Moq Callback syntax :)

Ayende Rahien commented on Rhino Mocks 3.5: A feature to be proud of - seamless Do()

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:39:33 GMT

Do( (Func) (x) = > a);

Shawn Neal commented on Rhino Mocks 3.5: A feature to be proud of - seamless Do()

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:12:39 GMT

How would you go about lazily returning a value in an older version of RhinoMocks? Moq's "Returns" statement takes a value or a delegate (iirc), but RhinoMocks "Return" takes only a value (int in my example). Is there another way in RhinoMocks to set the return value that I'm not aware of?

Ayende Rahien commented on Rhino Mocks 3.5: A feature to be proud of - seamless Do()

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:55:13 GMT

You could always do that (as far back as 2.0). The problem was the syntax was lousy.

Shawn Neal commented on Rhino Mocks 3.5: A feature to be proud of - seamless Do()

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:51:31 GMT

This is great especially the returnValue you've added to the Do syntax. I can finally reproduce all of the Moq QuickStart examples using RhinoMocks, the Expect Call With Reference Lazy Evaluate was the last one I was having problems reproducing using RhinoMocks. This now works: [Test] public void ShouldExpectCallWithReferenceLazyEvaluate() { int a = 25; var mock = MockRepository.GenerateMock(); mock.Expect(x => x.DoArgument(Arg.Matches(arg => arg == a.ToString()))) .Return(a) .Do(invocation => invocation.ReturnValue = a); a = 10; Assert.AreEqual(10, mock.DoArgument("10")); }

Ayende Rahien commented on Rhino Mocks 3.5: A feature to be proud of - seamless Do()

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:05:29 GMT

Chris. Use MockRepository instance methods instead. Then you can call mocks.VerifyAll(); This feature has been in Rhino Mocks since 2.0

Ayende Rahien commented on Rhino Mocks 3.5: A feature to be proud of - seamless Do()

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:03:16 GMT

Eddie , No, that is a bug.

Ayende Rahien commented on Rhino Mocks 3.5: A feature to be proud of - seamless Do()

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:00:44 GMT

Chris, Wrapped up, I don't want to expose the underlying implementation to the user

Chris Canal commented on Rhino Mocks 3.5: A feature to be proud of - seamless Do()

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:18:36 GMT

I like the new syntax, it almost stopped me moving to Moq, however, is there no way to centralise verifying all the expectations? With Moq you get the MockFactory to pull mocks out and allows you to call VerifyAll. This seems to be missing with Rhino 3.5? Or am I being stupid? I'm not a huge fan of using a callback, it adds noise IMO....

Eddie Garmon commented on Rhino Mocks 3.5: A feature to be proud of - seamless Do()

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:40:48 GMT

Is there any reason that you start with wasCalled as true? Validating it is true at the end is rather pointless given the initial truthfullness.

Chris Ortman commented on Rhino Mocks 3.5: A feature to be proud of - seamless Do()

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:44:50 GMT

What is invocation? IInvocation or is it wrapped up?