> Hi,

> I have a question you might help me with.
> We need to verify that a method A calls any of the overloaded forms of
> method B.

> e.g. I have
> void B(int)
> void B(int, int)
> void B(int, int, int)

> and I don't care which one of those is called from my method A (at
> least one must be called).
> Is it possible with Rhino Mocks to define "alternative
> expectations" ?  Like a set of expectation from which at least one
> must be met (or something like .VerifyAnyExpectation instead
> of .VerifyAllExpectations) ?

> If this is not possible, what would you suggest for this scenario?

> What I did now is grouped the 3 methods in the most complex one.
> The call B(x) will now be B(x, null, null), but I don't like this work-
> around and I'm looking for better alternatives.

> Thanks,
> Al

> The code isn't random as runtime is it?  There is logic in place to
> determine what actual method should be called.  If that is the case you can
> assert the different scenarios.

> Tim

> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Al <ali.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Hi,

>> I have a question you might help me with.
>> We need to verify that a method A calls any of the overloaded forms of
>> method B.

>> e.g. I have
>> void B(int)
>> void B(int, int)
>> void B(int, int, int)

>> and I don't care which one of those is called from my method A (at
>> least one must be called).
>> Is it possible with Rhino Mocks to define "alternative
>> expectations" ?  Like a set of expectation from which at least one
>> must be met (or something like .VerifyAnyExpectation instead
>> of .VerifyAllExpectations) ?

>> If this is not possible, what would you suggest for this scenario?

>> What I did now is grouped the 3 methods in the most complex one.
>> The call B(x) will now be B(x, null, null), but I don't like this work-
>> around and I'm looking for better alternatives.

>> Thanks,
>> Al

> --
> Tim Barcz
> ASPInsider
> http://timbarcz.devlicio.us
> http://www.twitter.com/timbarcz

> Yes, there is a logic to determine which is called but this is
> implementation detail. If my email service as overloaded sendmail
> methods. All I care is one of them is called. Which one is called is
> the implementation detail and I don't want my test case to fail if the
> implementation changes in future.

> There is no direct support from RhinoMocks for this but you can do
> below to archive the same result:

> try {
>   mock.AssertWasCalled(x=>x.B(i));} catch (FogotNameButYouCanFindOutEasilyException)

> {
>   try {
>     mock.AssertWasCalled(x=>x.B(i,j));
>   } catch (...) {
>     mock.AssertWasCalled(x=>x.B(i,j,k));
>   }

> }
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Tim Barcz<timba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What is the usage of this....?

> > The code isn't random as runtime is it?  There is logic in place to
> > determine what actual method should be called.  If that is the case you can
> > assert the different scenarios.

> > Tim

> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Al <ali.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Hi,

> >> I have a question you might help me with.
> >> We need to verify that a method A calls any of the overloaded forms of
> >> method B.

> >> e.g. I have
> >> void B(int)
> >> void B(int, int)
> >> void B(int, int, int)

> >> and I don't care which one of those is called from my method A (at
> >> least one must be called).
> >> Is it possible with Rhino Mocks to define "alternative
> >> expectations" ?  Like a set of expectation from which at least one
> >> must be met (or something like .VerifyAnyExpectation instead
> >> of .VerifyAllExpectations) ?

> >> If this is not possible, what would you suggest for this scenario?

> >> What I did now is grouped the 3 methods in the most complex one.
> >> The call B(x) will now be B(x, null, null), but I don't like this work-
> >> around and I'm looking for better alternatives.

> >> Thanks,
> >> Al

> > --
> > Tim Barcz
> > ASPInsider
> >http://timbarcz.devlicio.us
> >http://www.twitter.com/timbarcz- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> Thanks Kenneth,

> What you described is exactly what I have. Sorry I didn't explain
> better myself.

> I just wanted to check with you that Rhino Mocks doesn't provide
> support for that, before trying something else.

> I'll do something similar with what you proposed and make sure my
> condition (that exactly one of the function is called) is met.

> Cheers,
> Al