http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/ EasyMock Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:18:51 GMT Henri Tremblay http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1429 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1429 Hello everyone, EasyMock 2.5.1 was just delivered. This version is a special one. Nothing changed except we are moving to Apache 2 license (from MIT one). This Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:21:20 GMT Henri Tremblay http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1428 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1428 You have a samples jar included in the bundle in the download section. Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:37:54 GMT Andy http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1427 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1427 I am deciding beween a few mock frameworks and Easymock is one of them. However the documentation is really confusing me. Is there any better example code to Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:48:38 GMT alzamabar http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1426 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1426 ... In this case I don't agree on the call for refactoring. If order to test the refactored method I should add its signature to the interface, but this would Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:35:55 GMT Henri Tremblay http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1425 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1425 Hi, Since BufferedWriter is instantiated in your method you can't. But this is a call to refactoring. For instance, your method could take an OutputStream or a Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:57:18 GMT alzamabar http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1424 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1424 ... Ok, but in this case how could I simulate an IOException from within the method execution? At a certain point I have a BufferedWriter which writes some Sun, 07 Jun 2009 17:44:58 GMT Henri Tremblay http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1423 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1423 This error means your recorded method doesn't declare IOException. So you cannot throw it. If that's not the case, then we'll need a complete failing test case Sun, 07 Jun 2009 15:35:12 GMT alzamabar http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1422 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1422 Hi all, I've got the following method which I want to test for failures: [code] public void drainDocumentIndexCacheToDisk() { if (documentIndexCache.isEmpty()) Sun, 24 May 2009 13:13:37 GMT Henri Tremblay http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1421 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1421 One last thing For those who wonder, the next steps are: - Move EasyMock from MIT to Apache license (for complex legal reasons). So version 2.5.1 will be under Sun, 24 May 2009 13:04:19 GMT Henri Tremblay http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1420 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1420 Hello everyone, I'm extremely proud to announce that EasyMock 2.5 was just delivered. It contains a lots of features and improvements. Mostly requested by you. Wed, 13 May 2009 13:00:29 GMT leojhartiv http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1419 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1419 This looks like it might do the trick. I'll give it a look. Thanks! Wed, 13 May 2009 02:07:49 GMT Ben Hutchison http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1418 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1418 Ive been in your situation before. My sympathies. Powermock is a good option for you. Its built over Easymock. -Ben ... -- *Ben Hutchison Senior Developer * Fri, 08 May 2009 20:21:24 GMT Henri Tremblay http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1417 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1417 Yes, but you don't care about coverage on this method. It's just a one line method delegating. Chances to have a bug or broke the contract is quite thin... Fri, 08 May 2009 17:21:26 GMT leojhartiv http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1416 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1416 Thanks for your patience. Let me try to explain my confusion/concerns using your code (mixed with my own). Here's the code as it appears now: class Parent { Thu, 07 May 2009 19:36:53 GMT Henri Tremblay http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1415 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/easymock/message/1415 Huh? Not sure to follow. Normally the problem is that you want to test your method and mock the super call. So delegating it to some other method allow you to