Like I said before, this as been on the back of my mind for a while.
A while back I introduced a way to get the MethodInfo of a method in a strongly typed way using LINQ, and that's how I'm going to make Reflective Mocks more Natural.
Well, it's as easy as this:
public static class MockExtender
public static IParameters ExpectAndReturn<T1, T2, TResult>(this IMockControl mock, Expression<Func<T1, T2, TResult>> expression, object ret, params Type genericTypes)
return mock.ExpectAndReturn((expression.Body as MethodCallExpression).Method.Name, ret, genericTypes);
(For now, I'll leave to someone else the implementation of the rest of the overloads)
With this implementation it's possible to handle static classes (a limitation of Fredrik's implementation).
As for private methods, just let Visual Studio (2008, in this sample) and TypeMock do their magic.
So, to test this class:
public static class Class1
public static string PublicMethod(string param1, int param2)
return PrivateMethod(param2, param1);
private static string PrivateMethod(int param2, string param1)
throw new NotImplementedException();
We just write this test:
public void PublicMethodTest()
string param1 = "param";
int param2 = 5;
string expected = "return";
Mock targetMock = MockManager.Mock(typeof(Class1));
targetMock.ExpectAndReturn((int i, string s) => ClassLibrary1.Class1_Accessor.PrivateMethod(i, s), expected).Args(param2, param1);
actual = Class1.PublicMethod(param1, param2);
How about this for clean and simple?
I've been thinking about this for a while. Seems like someone beat me to it.
Whenever you throw TDD without worshiping it you turn yourself immediately in a victim of religious fundamentalists. TDD is a gift from god, it's good, it's cool and should never be questioned. It's a dogma.
Frans Bouma complains about it and the lack of scientific proof of the fact that TDD is really useful and good. Phil Haack throws a paper at him (which I haven't read - just looked at) but, from his own comments, doesn't dismiss Frans's point.
Why are we testing code anyway? What does it prove? According to Frans, not much. I'll have to agree with Frans on this. In summary, first you need to prove (or have proof) that what you are going to code is the right thing. Only then you can prove that you've done it correctly.
This goes even further when frameworks like TypeMock are considered too powerful. They are seen as evil in the eyes of the purists. Roy Osherove questions his readers and TypeMock community about this.
While we have to have in mind Frans' post about correctness provability, Travis does make a good point when he questions "Design for testability vs. API as a deliverable".
My bottom line in this subject is that testing tools are just tools like any other tools use in software development. The fact that they are becoming so good and powerful just changes what tools we use and how we use them.
I like compiled languages because they give me confidence over interpreted languages, because I can assert that although my code might have some errors on what it does it doesn't have any errors on how it was written.
On another level, unit testing and mock frameworks give me confidence that my code will do exactly what I intended it to do. Which might still not be correct.
Reading Roy Osherove's post about naming conventions for unit testing I have to say that it all makes sense to me.
I just want to add that for property testing I use the corresponding method names: get_Property and set_Property.
Responding to Joe Stagner's invitation to blog at the ASP.NET blogging community, I've set up a new blog.
My new blog is at http://weblogs.asp.net/PauloMorgado/ and will be a mirror of my pre existing blog in "English" at MSMVPS. The syndication feed will be the same for both blogs (http://feeds.feedburner.com/PauloMorgadoEN) like I already have for my two blogs in Portuguese [^][^][^].