comments for kzu @ http://haacked.com/archive/2009/09/29/moq-sequences.aspx

[gerry_lowry (alliston ontario canada (705) 250-0112)]

http://haacked.com/archive/2009/09/29/moq-sequences.aspx

three of the four last comments (as of a few minutes ago) seem to be addressed
implicitly to Daniel a.k.a. kzu ... one of the comments is explicitly addressed to Daniel.

just curious ... any plans to implement sequencing "out of the box"
to use Roy Osherove's phrase? (sixth last comment at above link).


Gerry

[Daniel Cazzulino]

Sounds fair. The last comment is the best IMO.

What if you could sequence just by calling .Returns (or .Throws) more than once? So we'd have overwrite behavior for the first call to .Returns, but not successive ones:

mock.Setup(x => x.Do()).Returns(2);

// overwrites the previous one, current behavior:

mock.Setup(x => x.Do()).Returns(5);

// sequencing

mock.Setup(x => x.Do())

        .Returns(2)

        .Returns(3)

        .Throws<InvalidOperationException>();

I do like the shortcut for returning many values in order:

// essencially the same as above call

mock.Setup(x => x.Do())

        .Returns(2, 3)

        .Throws<InvalidOperationException>();

Not sure if a simple overload receiving T, params T[] sequence, is OK or if a more explicit method name such as ReturnsOrdered is better... thoughts?

/kzu

--
Daniel Cazzulino | Developer Lead | XML MVP | Clarius Consulting | +1 425.329.3471

--
Post: moq...@googlegroups.com
Unsubscribe: moqdisc-u...@googlegroups.com

[Jason Jarrett]

This may be a little too verbose, but I do like the readability with the "dot" syntax.

mock.Setup(x => x.Do())

        .Returns(2)

        .AndThenReturns(3)

        .AndThenReturns(4)

        .AndThenThrows<InvalidOperationException>();

[Daniel Cazzulino]

there's no need for the "AndThen", IMO. The fact that you're chaining it after the previous call should be enough indication that it's an "andthen", just like .Setup().Callback().Returns().Callback() works

makes sense?

/kzu

--
Daniel Cazzulino | Developer Lead | XML MVP | Clarius Consulting | +1 425.329.3471

[Andrew Kazyrevich]

mock.Setup(x => x.Do())

        .Returns(2)

        .Returns(3)

        .Throws<InvalidOperationException>();

This sounds really neat. Surely no need for "AndThen" etc.

The second one with params - "mock.Setup(x => x.Do()).Returns(2, 5, 10)" feels more confusing and anyway if the last call should throw or whatever, we still have to use ".Throws" etc.

[Daniel Cazzulino]

yup, more explicit is better IMO.

/kzu

--
Daniel Cazzulino | Developer Lead | XML MVP | Clarius Consulting | +1 425.329.3471

[Jason Jarrett]

+1 for the feature. 

I do like the consistency of the below...

mock.Setup(x => x.Do())

        .Returns(2)

        .Returns(3)

        .Throws<InvalidOperationException>();

[Ben Taylor UK]

Another +1 for the feature.

I also like:

mock.Setup(x => x.Do())
.Returns(2)
.Returns(3)
.Throws<InvalidOperationException>();

On Nov 21, 1:08 am, Jason Jarrett <sta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for the feature.
>
> I do like the consistency of the below...
>
> mock.Setup(x => x.Do())
>         .Returns(2)
>         .Returns(3)
>         .Throws<InvalidOperationException>();
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Daniel Cazzulino <k...@clariusconsulting.net
>
> > wrote:
> > yup, more explicit is better IMO.
>
> > /kzu
>
> > --
> > Daniel Cazzulino | Developer Lead | XML MVP | Clarius Consulting | +1
> > 425.329.3471
>

> >>>>> (705) 250-0112) <gerry.lo...@abilitybusinesscomputerservices.com>wrote: