Issue 347 in mockito: timeout with never

[moc...@googlecode.com]

Status: New
Owner: ----
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium

New issue 347 by botismar...@gmail.com: timeout with never
http://code.google.com/p/mockito/issues/detail?id=347

It doesn't have any sense to use timeout with atMost. Considering that
never is equivalent to atMost(0), I think it doesn't make sense either to
allow combinations of timeout and never either.

[moc...@googlecode.com]

Updates:
Labels: -Priority-Medium Priority-Low

Comment #1 on issue 347 by szcze...@gmail.com: timeout with never
http://code.google.com/p/mockito/issues/detail?id=347

Good point. Next time we make some changes in the area we might look at it
and see what can be done to improve it. I'd say it's not a high priority
item.

[moc...@googlecode.com]

Comment #2 on issue 347 by syva...@yahoo.com: timeout with never
http://code.google.com/p/mockito/issues/detail?id=347

It would be nice to have the following functionality:
verify(a.b(), timeout(x).never()): verify that b is not called within x ms.
verify(a.b(), timeout(x).atMost(y)): verify that b is not called more than
y times within x ms.

I agree timeout might be incorrect term here, as we are not waiting for the
condition to become true. Instead we are waiting to see that it stays true.
Unfortunately I cannot come up with any good term for that.

[moc...@googlecode.com]

Comment #3 on issue 347 by brice.du...@gmail.com: timeout with never
http://code.google.com/p/mockito/issues/detail?id=347

Hi

The meaning of what you try to achieve is interesting, what
about 'during(x).atMost(y)' ?

[moc...@googlecode.com]

Comment #4 on issue 347 by szcze...@gmail.com: timeout with never
http://code.google.com/p/mockito/issues/detail?id=347

I think I'm ok with adding something like during(). I assume It would
always wait until the end of the timeout, whereas timeout() has a chance to
bail out early.

Thanks for the suggestion!

[moc...@googlecode.com]

Comment #5 on issue 347 by syva...@yahoo.com: timeout with never
http://code.google.com/p/mockito/issues/detail?id=347

Excellent idea Brice, 'during' sounds very clear!

[moc...@googlecode.com]

Comment #6 on issue 347 by PimTe...@gmail.com: timeout with never
http://code.google.com/p/mockito/issues/detail?id=347

I've now put up patches to fix this: there's a pull request deprecating
timeout().never() at https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/14, and
another pull request adding an after() method that provides the
functionality you'd expect from timeout() here at
https://github.com/mockito/mockito/pull/16

--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

[moc...@googlecode.com]

Updates:
Status: Fixed
Labels: Milestone-Release1.10.0

Comment #7 on issue 347 by szcze...@gmail.com: timeout with never
https://code.google.com/p/mockito/issues/detail?id=347

(No comment was entered for this change.)