C# – Strict Mocks using AAA syntax of Rhino Mocks

cnetrhino-mocksunit testing

Is it possible to create a "strict" mock using the new AAA syntax of Rhino Mocks? The issue I am seeing is that the library I am mocking often returns null as a valid return value (which I handle in my function), so using the default mock I can never be sure if I tested all paths or I forgot to set some expectations.

Best Answer

I Rhino Mocks 3.6 we finally have: MockRepository.GenerateStrictMock<T>(). GenerateMock does not create strict mocks.

Related Solutions

C# – Should ‘using’ directives be inside or outside the namespace

There is actually a (subtle) difference between the two. Imagine you have the following code in File1.cs:

// File1.cs
using System;
namespace Outer.Inner
{
    class Foo
    {
        static void Bar()
        {
            double d = Math.PI;
        }
    }
}

Now imagine that someone adds another file (File2.cs) to the project that looks like this:

// File2.cs
namespace Outer
{
    class Math
    {
    }
}

The compiler searches Outer before looking at those using directives outside the namespace, so it finds Outer.Math instead of System.Math. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately?), Outer.Math has no PI member, so File1 is now broken.

This changes if you put the using inside your namespace declaration, as follows:

// File1b.cs
namespace Outer.Inner
{
    using System;
    class Foo
    {
        static void Bar()
        {
            double d = Math.PI;
        }
    }
}

Now the compiler searches System before searching Outer, finds System.Math, and all is well.

Some would argue that Math might be a bad name for a user-defined class, since there's already one in System; the point here is just that there is a difference, and it affects the maintainability of your code.

It's also interesting to note what happens if Foo is in namespace Outer, rather than Outer.Inner. In that case, adding Outer.Math in File2 breaks File1 regardless of where the using goes. This implies that the compiler searches the innermost enclosing namespace before it looks at any using directive.

What’s the difference between faking, mocking, and stubbing

You can get some information :

From Martin Fowler about Mock and Stub

Fake objects actually have working implementations, but usually take some shortcut which makes them not suitable for production

Stubs provide canned answers to calls made during the test, usually not responding at all to anything outside what's programmed in for the test. Stubs may also record information about calls, such as an email gateway stub that remembers the messages it 'sent', or maybe only how many messages it 'sent'.

Mocks are what we are talking about here: objects pre-programmed with expectations which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive.

From xunitpattern:

Fake: We acquire or build a very lightweight implementation of the same functionality as provided by a component that the SUT depends on and instruct the SUT to use it instead of the real.

Stub : This implementation is configured to respond to calls from the SUT with the values (or exceptions) that will exercise the Untested Code (see Production Bugs on page X) within the SUT. A key indication for using a Test Stub is having Untested Code caused by the inability to control the indirect inputs of the SUT

Mock Object that implements the same interface as an object on which the SUT (System Under Test) depends. We can use a Mock Object as an observation point when we need to do Behavior Verification to avoid having an Untested Requirement (see Production Bugs on page X) caused by an inability to observe side-effects of invoking methods on the SUT.

Personally

I try to simplify by using : Mock and Stub. I use Mock when it's an object that returns a value that is set to the tested class. I use Stub to mimic an Interface or Abstract class to be tested. In fact, it doesn't really matter what you call it, they are all classes that aren't used in production, and are used as utility classes for testing.