Hi!

Suppose I want to mock a method with the following signature:

public

bool MyHelperMethod(int arg1, out DataSet ds1, out DataSet ds2, out DataSet ds3, out DataSet ds4)

Is there a way to use the "Returns" method to return a value that depends on the argument values passed in, rather than returning a hardcoded value?

I am thinking of something along the lines of:

Mock.Arrange(() => helper.MyHelperMethod(Arg.AnyInt, out set1, out set2, out set3, out set4))

.DoInstead(() =>

{
// mock implementation omitted 

})

.Returns(
(int arg1, out DataSet ds1, out DataSet ds2, out DataSet ds3, out DataSet ds4)
=> /* some return value computed from the arguments */);

If this is not possible (due to the "out" parameters in the method signature), can I do what I want to do by writing multiple Arrange statements, each matching on different parameter values, and then return a different value in each of these Arrange statements?

Thanks,
Asim

If you are unit testing a method that gets an Arranged mocked property and, then, sets that property, how do you verify the results at then end?

For example, let's say we want to unit test a method that looks like:

I would expect to be able to write a test similar to:

The assert fails because the mocked property return is still in effect and you get testObject.  What's the proper way to write this test?  Thanks!

Ok, so we have an asp.net server control

The server control internally calls a method to Load the Authenticated User.  It HAD System.Web.HttpContext.Current hardcoded in this method, but I extracted that out to a property to allow me to pass in my own mocked version (I assume thats what JustMock does)?


So the question is...how do I go about Mocking this?  Because I need this Unit Test to pass :)  I want GetAuthenticatedProfile to return me an MppProfile object of my choosing as this test doesnt need to go through all of the MembershipUser bits.

Am I even doing this right?  Should it be simpler in that I pass in an isTest bool and just ignore this part of the method if isTest is true?

Hi There,
     Currently I've facing parameters limitation in JustMock,
I've several functions which have more than 9 parameter, (eg: 10 parameters)

When I'm mock my function, up to 9 parameter it is ok to compile, when my functions have 10 or more parameter JustMock give me error. as following
Error    17    Delegate 'Telerik.JustMock.Action2' does not take 10 arguments   

Good day,

I'm wondering if there anyway of enabling JustMock so that it doesn't disable on it own?  I've enable Justmockfor for one test and on the next test run, JustMock has been disabled.  I've try the suggestion in http://www.telerik.com/community/forums/justmock/general-discussions/why-is-the-enable-disable-the-profiler-an-ide-setting.aspx but it doesn't seem to always work.

Thanks for any suggestion that you might have,

James

I have a problem with this code:


Mock.Arrange(...) throws the following exception:
System.NullReferenceException occurred
  Message=Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
  Source=Telerik.JustMock
  StackTrace:
       at .™.(Type valueType, Object value) in c:\B\Basilisk\Basilisk CI Build\Sources\CodeBase\Telerik.JustMock\Utility.cs:line 334
  InnerException: 

If I change the Arrange method to use Arg.IsAny<Guid>() instead of the explicit value there is no exception and everything works fine.
I am using the latest internal JustMock Free Edition build 2011.1.620.0.
Also test it on the official build and the results were the same.
Hope that will help you solve the problem.

Ok, I'm not going to pretend I 100% still understand justmock, every sample always seems to be testing justmock if that makes sense :)

But we're running into an issue where our MSTests are failing due to profile bits changing.  So lets say my profile says I'm part of Program 1, and we write the test to check things against that using OpenAccess queries to the DB....but then someone changes me to Program 2, then the test starts to fail becasue the subsequent asserts were based on me being in Program 1.

So that being said...

Is it possible to have the mocking tool generate test objects\test data?

Let me jump ship for a second and throw another example

This is an Extension Method we have inside OpenAccess

So if I have a test that says this

...how is that mockable?  When reading the examples it seems that I would mock the return from _authDBContext.MppProfiles.GetUser(), but if I did that isn't that just testing JustMock itself as what I really want to test is if profiles.SingleOrDefault isn't throwing an error?  Or am I looking at this the wrong way?

**Confused**

After installing JustMock on my work machine I'm getting the following error when in debug

 

A first chance exception of type 'System.UnauthorizedAccessException' occurred in Telerik.CodeWeaver.Hook.dll

I've uninstalled 2 times. This works great for my home pc. Is there any permission that I need to insure on this dll. In my project I only have a reference to Telerik.JustMock. Thanks in advance!

Hi everyone.

I'm having a weird problem with the the JustMock.Assert() method and "Running All Tests" in the solution.

I wrote a solution having < 50 unit tests. In these tests, I'm using the Mock.Assert(), and the .OccursOnce() quite often. Now if I run all these tests at once using the "Run All Tests in Solution" Button some of these fail. But when I run the failing tests once again, they pass.
This means, that I always have to run the unit test twice to get my solution green.

It seems, that this problem appears, when Mocking the same objects in different test cases.

One sample exception of such test would be: 
Test method [methodname] threw exception: 
Telerik.JustMock.MockAssertionException: Expected SAPtoADZipper.Zip(List`1) call on the mock should be once, but it was called 0 time(s).

I'm using Just Mock version 2011.1.315.0, and Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting in Visual Studio 2010 with C# in the 3.5 .net Framework.

Does anyone have a hint for me, how to resolve this?
Maybe there's a way to mark the tests to run in an isolated Thread or something.

Thanks!