JMock expectations oneOf VS one difference Is any difference in using one() or oneOf() in JMock? In cheat sheet mentioned before there is also example. Appendix A. jMock2 Cheat Sheet Introduction We use jMock2 as our mock object We’re using JUnit (we assume you’re familiar with it); jMock also. jMock 1 Documentation Stubs, Expectations and the Dispatch of Mocked Methods in jMock 1 3; Mocking Classes with jMock 1 and CGLIB 4 Cheat Sheet .

Author: Voodoonris Vudogami
Country: Cameroon
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Spiritual
Published (Last): 17 September 2010
Pages: 191
PDF File Size: 17.53 Mb
ePub File Size: 8.61 Mb
ISBN: 551-3-16139-916-7
Downloads: 75446
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Akinorg

Jmpck following code specifies that the method “doSomething” must be called with two arguments, the first of which is equal to 1 and the second of which is ignored in this test. If a mock object is stored in a local variable, the variable must be declared as final so that it can be referred to from within expectation blocks see below. If the expected calls were not made, the test will fail. The jMock library is explored in more depth in other Cookbook recipes 2. Matchers can sueet composed to create a tighter or looser specification.

Next we define expectations 1 on the mock Subscriber that specify the methods that we expect to be called upon it during the test run. A Mockery represents the context of the object under test: The invocation is expected exactly n times.

A Publisher sends messages to zero or more Subscribers. Sign up using Email and Password. But the exactly one aka exactly 1.


jMock – jMock 1 Documentation

To define looser constraints, specify all arguments as matchers within with clauses:. If not specified, the state machine starts in an unnamed initial state. Composite matchers are themselves matchers and can therefore be further composed. This is a JUnit 3 test case but apart from the test case class the code will be the same when using any test framework for which jMock 2 does not have an integration layer.

The jMock Cookbook

Is any difference in using one or oneOf in JMock? The following code specifies that the method “doSomething” must be called with a string that contains the text “hello” and the text “world”. Conditions are represented as states of state machines.

The question is if there is any difference between this keywords or it means equaly the same cheaf.

A test can contain multiple expectation blocks. Null values are checked beforehand, so it is safe to specify equal null or apply the matcher to a null actual value.

The jmocl below, for example, specifies that the method “doSomething” must be called with one argument of value 1. Loose parameter constraints are defined by specifying matchers for each parameter.

This is useful for ignoring arguments that are not relevant to the scenario being tested.

jMock – jMock 2 Cheat Sheet

Email Required, but never shown. By convention the Mockery is stored in an instance variable named context. The anyOf matcher specifies that the actual argument must meet at least one of the matchers given as arguments.

The argument is null. Stack Overflow works best with JavaScript enabled. The stringContaining matcher specifies that the expected jock must be a string that contains the given substring. Do all actions a 1 to a n on every invocation. An expectation that uses parameter matchers must use the “with” method to wrap every parameter, whether a matcher function or a literal value. We then register the Subscriber with the Publisher.


Most of the time expectations specify literal parameter values that are compared for equality against the actual parameters of invoked methods. The same as allowing.

First we must import the jMock classes, define our test fixture class and create a “Mockery” that represents the context in which the Publisher exists.

Tests written with JUnit 4 do not need to extend a specific base class but must specify that they use jMock with the RunWith sheeet, create a JUnit4Mockery that reports expectation failures as JUnit 4 test failures, and store the Mockery in an instance variable. A test can create multiple state machines and each state machine can have multiple states.

To expect a sequence of invocations, write the expectations in order and add the inSequence sequence clause to each one. Arrays are treated as a special case: The same matcher specifies that the actual value of the argument must be the same object as the expected value.

Constrains the cheag expectation to occur only when the state machine is in the named state. Well this finally make sense: