blocks|key|3974366|text|这里有一种方法..。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|3974367|mock.AssertWasCalled(m=>m.Method1(),+options+=>+options.WhenCalled(w+=>+mockService.AssertWasNotCalled(x=>x.Method2())));
mock.AssertWasCalled(m=>m.Method2(),+options+=>+options.WhenCalled(w+=>+mockService.AssertWasNotCalled(x=>x.Method3())));
mock.AssertWasCalled(m=>m.Method3());|code-block|syntax|javascript|3974368|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|I|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|D|7|J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|G|3|-4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|H|$]]

Here's one way to do it...

<pre><code>mock.AssertWasCalled(m=&gt;m.Method1(), options =&gt; options.WhenCalled(w =&gt; mockService.AssertWasNotCalled(x=&gt;x.Method2())));
mock.AssertWasCalled(m=&gt;m.Method2(), options =&gt; options.WhenCalled(w =&gt; mockService.AssertWasNotCalled(x=&gt;x.Method3())));
mock.AssertWasCalled(m=&gt;m.Method3());
</code></pre>

blocks|key|199687|text|你可以，但你真的不应该。你应该专注于测试外部可观察的行为，而不是实现。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|199688|方法调用顺序可以更改，而不会影响与API客户端的约定。在这种情况下，您的测试将失败，即使它不应该失败。|199689|简而言之，测试实现导致了脆弱的测试。脆性测试会导致测试被放弃。你不会想去那里的。|199690|希望这能有所帮助。|199691|entityMap^0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|L|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|M|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|H|3|-4|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|I|$]]

You can, but you really shouldn't. You should focus on testing the externall observable behaviors, rather than the implementation.

Method call order can change without affecting the contract with the client of the API. In that case, your test will fail, even when it shouldn't.

In short, testing implementation leads to brittle tests. Brittle tests lead to abandonment of the tests. You don't want to go there.

Hope this helps.

blocks|key|3974441|text|下面是如何很好地做到这一点。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|3974442|var+mocks+=+new+MockRepository();
var+fooMock+=+mocks.DynamicMock<IFoo>();
using+(mocks.Ordered())
{
++++fooMock.Expect(x+=>+x.Method1());
++++fooMock.Expect(x+=>+x.Method2());
}
fooMock.Replay();

var+bar+=+new+Bar(fooMock);
bar.DoWork();

fooMock.VerifyAllExpectations();|code-block|syntax|javascript|3974443|在这篇博文中找到了答案：Verifying+the+Order+Of+Method+Execution+With+Rhino+Mocks+3.5+by+Philip+Japikse|offset|length|3974444|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://www.skimedic.com/blog/post/2009/03/12/Verifying-the-Order-Of-Method-Execution-With-Rhino-Mocks-35^0|0|0|C|1O|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|S|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|D|7|T|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|G|3|H|5|6|7|U|8|@]|9|@$I|V|J|W|1|X]]|A|$]]|$1|K|3|-4|5|6|7|Y|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|L|$M|$5|N|O|P|A|$Q|R]]]]

Here is how to do it nicely.
<pre><code>var mocks = new MockRepository();
var fooMock = mocks.DynamicMock&lt;IFoo&gt;();
using (mocks.Ordered())
{
 fooMock.Expect(x =&gt; x.Method1());
 fooMock.Expect(x =&gt; x.Method2());
}
fooMock.Replay();

var bar = new Bar(fooMock);
bar.DoWork();

fooMock.VerifyAllExpectations();
</code></pre>
Found the answer from this blog post: <a href="http://www.skimedic.com/blog/post/2009/03/12/Verifying-the-Order-Of-Method-Execution-With-Rhino-Mocks-35" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Verifying the Order Of Method Execution With Rhino Mocks 3.5</a> by Philip Japikse

blocks|key|1216645|text|下面是如何通过在每个方法调用中构建断言来实现的。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1216646|//+Arrange+-+Build+the+necessary+assertions+into+the+stubbed+method+invocations.
var+mock+=+MockRepository.GenerateMock<ISomeService>();
mock.Stub(m+=>+m.Method1()).WhenCalled(inv+=>+mock.AssertWasNotCalled(m+=>+m.Method2()));
mock.Stub(m+=>+m.Method2()).WhenCalled(inv+=>+mock.AssertWasNotCalled(m+=>+m.Method3()));

//+Act
myObject.Service+=+mock;

//+Assert+-+Ensure+each+expected+method+was+called.
mock.AssertWasCalled(m+=>+m.Method1());
mock.AssertWasCalled(m+=>+m.Method2());
mock.AssertWasCalled(m+=>+m.Method3());|code-block|syntax|javascript|1216647|由于这是通过在操作中期运行断言来混合正常的排列-动作-断言模式，因此我喜欢为这些实例包含非常具体的错误消息，以便更容易地识别测试失败。|1216648|mock.Stub(m+=>+m.Method1()).WhenCalled(inv+=>
++++mock.AssertWasNotCalled(m+=>+m.Method2(),+opt+=>
++++++++opt.Message("Method2+cannot+be+called+before+Method1.")));|1216649|您还可以在act步骤中将每次调用的结果保存在一个变量中，然后在assert步骤中检查变量状态，从而获得类似的结果。这更好地保留了排列-动作-断言模式的划分，但它需要编写和维护更多的管道代码。|1216650|//+Arrange+-+Build+the+necessary+state+variables+into+the+stubbed+method+invocations.
bool+wasMethod1Called;
bool+wasMethod2Called;
bool+wasMethod2CalledBeforeMethod1;
bool+wasMethod3CalledBeforeMethod2;

var+mock+=+MockRepository.GenerateMock<ISomeService>();
mock.Stub(m+=>+m.Method1()).WhenCalled(inv+=>
{
++++wasMethod1Called+=+true;
});
mock.Stub(m+=>+m.Method2()).WhenCalled(inv+=>
{
++++wasMethod2Called+=+true;
++++wasMethod2CalledBeforeMethod1+=+!wasMethod1Called;
});
mock.Stub(m+=>+m.Method3()).WhenCalled(inv+=>
{
++++wasMethod3CalledBeforeMethod2+=+!wasMethod2Called;
});

//+Act
myObject.Service+=+mock;

//+Assert+-+Ensure+each+expected+method+was+called,+and+that+they+were+called+in+the+right+order.
mock.AssertWasCalled(m+=>+m.Method1());
mock.AssertWasCalled(m+=>+m.Method2());
mock.AssertWasCalled(m+=>+m.Method3());
Assert.That(wasMethod2CalledBeforeMethod1,+Is.False,+"Method2+cannot+be+called+before+Method1.");
Assert.That(wasMethod3CalledBeforeMethod2,+Is.False,+"Method3+cannot+be+called+before+Method2.");|1216651|entityMap^0|0|0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|Q|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|D|7|R|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|G|3|H|5|6|7|S|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|I|3|J|5|D|7|T|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|K|3|L|5|6|7|U|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|M|3|N|5|D|7|V|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|O|3|-4|5|6|7|W|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|P|$]]

Here's how to do it by building assertions into each method invocation.

<pre><code>// Arrange - Build the necessary assertions into the stubbed method invocations.
var mock = MockRepository.GenerateMock&lt;ISomeService&gt;();
mock.Stub(m =&gt; m.Method1()).WhenCalled(inv =&gt; mock.AssertWasNotCalled(m =&gt; m.Method2()));
mock.Stub(m =&gt; m.Method2()).WhenCalled(inv =&gt; mock.AssertWasNotCalled(m =&gt; m.Method3()));

// Act
myObject.Service = mock;

// Assert - Ensure each expected method was called.
mock.AssertWasCalled(m =&gt; m.Method1());
mock.AssertWasCalled(m =&gt; m.Method2());
mock.AssertWasCalled(m =&gt; m.Method3());
</code></pre>

Since this is mixes up normal arrange-act-assert pattern by running assertions in mid-act, I like to include very specific error messages for these instances to identify test failures more easily.

<pre><code>mock.Stub(m =&gt; m.Method1()).WhenCalled(inv =&gt;
 mock.AssertWasNotCalled(m =&gt; m.Method2(), opt =&gt;
 opt.Message("Method2 cannot be called before Method1.")));
</code></pre>

You could also achieve a similar result by saving the result of each invocation in a variable during the act step, and then checking the variable states during the assert step. This better preserves the division of the arrange-act-assert pattern, but it is more plumbing code to write and maintain.

<pre><code>// Arrange - Build the necessary state variables into the stubbed method invocations.
bool wasMethod1Called;
bool wasMethod2Called;
bool wasMethod2CalledBeforeMethod1;
bool wasMethod3CalledBeforeMethod2;

var mock = MockRepository.GenerateMock&lt;ISomeService&gt;();
mock.Stub(m =&gt; m.Method1()).WhenCalled(inv =&gt;
{
 wasMethod1Called = true;
});
mock.Stub(m =&gt; m.Method2()).WhenCalled(inv =&gt;
{
 wasMethod2Called = true;
 wasMethod2CalledBeforeMethod1 = !wasMethod1Called;
});
mock.Stub(m =&gt; m.Method3()).WhenCalled(inv =&gt;
{
 wasMethod3CalledBeforeMethod2 = !wasMethod2Called;
});

// Act
myObject.Service = mock;

// Assert - Ensure each expected method was called, and that they were called in the right order.
mock.AssertWasCalled(m =&gt; m.Method1());
mock.AssertWasCalled(m =&gt; m.Method2());
mock.AssertWasCalled(m =&gt; m.Method3());
Assert.That(wasMethod2CalledBeforeMethod1, Is.False, "Method2 cannot be called before Method1.");
Assert.That(wasMethod3CalledBeforeMethod2, Is.False, "Method3 cannot be called before Method2.");
</code></pre>

blocks|key|5589502|text|@craastad指定的mocks.Ordered()语法是正确的方法，但是我不能让它在RhinoMocks+3.5中工作-相反，我必须在没有@craastad的解决方案用于调用Ordered()的MockRepository实例的情况下调整它：|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|5589503|var+fooMock+=+MockRepository.GenerateMock<IFoo>();
using+(fooMock.GetMockRepository().Ordered())
{
++++fooMock.Expect(x+=>+x.Method1());
++++fooMock.Expect(x+=>+x.Method2());
}

var+bar+=+new+Bar(fooMock);
bar.DoWork();

fooMock.VerifyAllExpectations();|code-block|syntax|javascript|5589504|如果这样做，似乎也没有必要调用fooMock.Replay()。|5589505|entityMap^0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|D|7|L|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|G|3|H|5|6|7|M|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|I|3|-4|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|J|$]]

The mocks.Ordered() syntax specified by @craastad is the right way to do it, but I couldn't get it to work in RhinoMocks 3.5 - instead I had to tweak it to work without the instance of MockRepository that @craastad's solution used to call Ordered() on:

<pre><code>var fooMock = MockRepository.GenerateMock&lt;IFoo&gt;();
using (fooMock.GetMockRepository().Ordered())
{
 fooMock.Expect(x =&gt; x.Method1());
 fooMock.Expect(x =&gt; x.Method2());
}

var bar = new Bar(fooMock);
bar.DoWork();

fooMock.VerifyAllExpectations();
</code></pre>

If you do it this way, it also appears to be unnecessary to call fooMock.Replay() either.

Is it possible to test for the following example if the Method1 called 1st, then Method2 called after and then Method3 by using the AAA syntax, in Rhino-mocks 3.6 ?

<pre><code>// Assert
var mock = MockRepository.GenerateMock&lt;ISomeService&gt;();

// Act
myObject.Service = mock;

// How should I change this part to ensure that Rhino Mocks check the call order as well?
mock.AssertWasCalled(m=&gt;m.Method1());
mock.AssertWasCalled(m=&gt;m.Method2());
mock.AssertWasCalled(m=&gt;m.Method3());
</code></pre>

Can I test method call order with AAA syntax in Rhino-Mocks 3.6?

翻译质量差，导致语言生硬或混乱。

没有提供实际的解决方法或示例。

解答不清晰，无法理解或解决问题。

页面排版不美观，阅读体验差。

文章

问答

视频

教程

学习中心

腾讯云实验室

直播

竞赛

腾讯云代码分析专区

腾讯iOA零信任安全管理系统专区

腾讯云架构师技术同盟交流圈

腾讯云数据库专区

腾讯云智能顾问专区

腾讯云原生专区

腾讯混元专区

腾讯云TCE专区

腾讯云Lighthouse专区

腾讯云HAI专区

腾讯云Edgeone专区

腾讯云存储专区

腾讯云智能专区

腾讯轻联专区 

腾讯云开发专区

TAPD专区

腾讯轻量云游戏服专区

腾讯云最具价值专家

腾讯云架构师技术同盟

腾讯云创作之星

腾讯云开发者先锋

腾讯云AI代码助手

云原生构建

TAPD 敏捷项目管理

Cloud Studio

SDK中心

API中心

命令行工具

功能1上新10个字符

功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符。

功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符。

功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符

功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符

功能4上新

文章&问答评论现已支持表情

全新交互，全新视觉，新增快捷键、悬浮工具栏、高亮块等功能并同时优化现有功能，全面提升创作效率和体验

社区富文本编辑器全新改版！诚邀体验～ 

精选全网热门MCP server，让你的AI更好用 🚀

💥开发者 MCP广场重磅上线！

涵盖代码开发、场景应用、自动测试全流程，助你从零构建专属AI助手

一站式MCP教程库，解锁AI应用新玩法

聚焦“写作效率、视觉美观与运行性能”三方面进行全面升级，为您提供更高效、稳定的创作环境

社区富文本&Markdown编辑器全新改版上线，欢迎大家体验!

诚挚邀请您参与本次调研，分享您的真实使用感受与建议。您的反馈至关重要，感谢您的支持与参与！

社区新版编辑器体验调研

在Rhino-mocks 3.6中，是否可以使用aaa语法测试以下示例: Method1先调用1，然后调用Method2，然后调用Method3？// Assertvar mock = MockRepository.GenerateMock<ISomeService>();// ActmyObject.Service = mock;// How should I change this part

问我可以在Rhino-Mocks 3.6中使用AAA语法测试方法调用顺序吗？
EN

回答 5

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问我可以在Rhino-Mocks 3.6中使用AAA语法测试方法调用顺序吗？EN

回答 5

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问我可以在Rhino-Mocks 3.6中使用AAA语法测试方法调用顺序吗？
EN