Approved
Last Updated: 23 Jul 2018 12:55 by Brian
Created by: Brian
Comments: 0
Type: Feature Request
18
Any plans to support Windows 10 UWP/UAP projects? I tried the existing version but ran into several roadblocks:

Attempt #1 (does not work):
Cannot add JustMockLite to a Windows 10 Unit Test project via NuGet because UAP projects are not supported.

Attempt #2 (does not work)
Add a reference to the pre-compiled binaries. The Win10 project allows the reference, but when the tests run, it results in a bunch of 'Could not find assembly System.Core v3.5.0.0' exceptions. Tried installing .Net 3.5 but didnt help. Tried building from source and retargeting the framework to 4, 4.5, 4.5.2, and 4.6, but that didnt work (see Attempt #3).
Just a note: when Visual Studio 2015 was in RC status, we had this working. We simply added a reference to the pre-compiled Telerik.JustMocks assembly and things worked. Updating to VS RTM though broke things.

Attempt #3 (does not work)
Compile JustMockLite from source.  VS complains that the Win10 Unit Test project is of type NetCore and the JustMock assembly targets NetFramework.

Attempt #4 (does not work)
Add reference to Telerik.JustMock.Portable to Windows 10 Unit Test project. This allows the project to compile and run, but any tests using Mock.Create() fail because System.Diagnostics.StackTrace.ctor is not supported.

Completed
Last Updated: 16 Jan 2019 08:39 by ADMIN
Created by: Robert
Comments: 7
Type: Feature Request
13

			
Completed
Last Updated: 30 Jun 2015 11:38 by Joe
Created by: Kaloyan
Comments: 1
Type: Feature Request
8
JustMock should be able to mock in WP8 assemblies.
Completed
Last Updated: 29 Apr 2014 10:42 by Nacho
JustMock should work in multi-threaded scenarios.
Completed
Last Updated: 06 Nov 2013 10:30 by Ovidiu
Hi,


Since I upgraded my JustMock I was unable to debug ASP.NET projects. I accidentally found a resolution to the problem here:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19415275/asp-net-mvc4-code-not-running

"If you are using Telerik JustMock as a mocking framework and have recently updated it to the 2013 Q3 version, it causes this exact problem. I was able to resolve this issue by uninstalling the mocking framework and installing the 2013 Q2 version."

So I uninstalled JustMock and everything came to normal.


Regards,
Ovidiu
Completed
Last Updated: 16 Jan 2019 08:51 by ADMIN
Created by: Michael
Comments: 4
Type: Bug Report
7
Creating a share link with Visual Studio Live Share does not work if you have the JustMock profiler enabled. We specifically have to disable the JustMock profiler in order for VS Live Share to create sharing links. This has been reproduced by several different members of our team.

Could this please be looked into? Thanks!
In Development
Last Updated: 03 Apr 2019 07:43 by ADMIN
Docker is a container acting like an isolated environment. Research how the JustMock profiler can be registered into such container.
Hosted VSTS should work on the same principle. Research how the registry could be accessed through VSTS extension or other tools.
Approved
Last Updated: 29 Nov 2017 14:20 by ADMIN
ADMIN
Created by: Mihail
Comments: 0
Type: Feature Request
5
AxoCover is test runner and a code coverage tool.

https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=axodox1.AxoCover

https://github.com/axodox/AxoCover
Approved
Last Updated: 04 Jan 2018 09:36 by Josh
ADMIN
Created by: Kamen Ivanov
Comments: 1
Type: Feature Request
4

			
Completed
Last Updated: 04 Jun 2013 06:40 by Keith
I use NCrunch, a popular test runner. But it cannot seem to activate the JustMock profiler properly. So tests that require use of the JustMock profiler do not work properly.
Completed
Last Updated: 23 May 2013 13:14 by Kaloyan
ADMIN
Created by: Mihail
Comments: 1
Type: Feature Request
3
JustMock should be able to mock private methods in Silverlight.
Completed
Last Updated: 14 Oct 2015 08:23 by Stefan
We have some mission critical code that catches all exceptions and recovers from them in various ways.  I would like to be able to use Mock.Create<MyClass>(Behavior.Strict) so that I can know that none of the methods on MyClass are being called besides the ones I explicitly Mock.Arrange.  However, this results in the methods throwing exceptions which are then caught by my application and recovered from so I never see them.

I would like something like this, but where I didn't have to manually arrange every method on the class and instead have some Behavior that I could give to Mock.Create that would result in all of the arranges being auto-generated.  I could then manually arrange anything I didn't want to have OccursNever on, just like you can override the exceptions thrown by Behavior.Strict.


class MyClass
{
    public void Method1() { }
    public void Method2() { }
    public void Method3() { }
}
 
class ClassUnderTest
{
    public void DoSomething(MyClass myClass)
    {
        myClass.Method3();
    }
}
 
[Test]
void MyClass_methods_are_never_called()
{
    // ARRANGE
    var myClass = Mock.Create<MyClass>();
    Mock.Arrange(() => myClass.Method1()).OccursNever();
    Mock.Arrange(() => myClass.Method2()).OccursNever();
    Mock.Arrange(() => myClass.Method3()).OccursNever();
 
    // ACT
    var classUnderTest = new ClassUnderTest();
    classUnderTest.DoSomething(myClass);
 
    // ASSERT
    Mock.Assert(myClass); // this will fail
}
Completed
Last Updated: 23 Jul 2018 13:47 by Nacho
Created by: Stefan
Comments: 3
Type: Feature Request
3
I want to be able to arrange the return value of `new` expressions, like Mock.Arrange(() => new FileInfo()).Returns(mockFileInfo).
Then, I expect that `new FileInfo()` will always return my mock instance.
Approved
Last Updated: 12 Oct 2018 08:32 by Troy
Created by: Troy
Comments: 0
Type: Feature Request
3
Allow future mocking of an entire class, including a default of DoNothing() for all methods in the class, rather than requiring each method to be future mocked separately.
Completed
Last Updated: 12 Sep 2018 14:04 by ADMIN
ADMIN
Created by: Kamen Ivanov
Comments: 1
Type: Feature Request
3
It would be good if we could use named parameters inside Mock.Arrange method.
Completed
Last Updated: 18 Jun 2019 08:43 by ADMIN
There is a different behaviour when mocking the same method using the following two Arrange overrides:

public static FuncExpectation<TResult> Arrange<TResult>(Expression<Func<TResult>> expression);
public static FuncExpectation<TResult> Arrange<T, TResult>(T obj, Func<T, TResult> func);

Repro project attached. Steps to reproduce:
1. Open attached solution
2. In Tests.cs, run JustMockArrangeQueryableTest - it passes
3. Run JustMockArrangeQueryableTest2 - it fails with a invalid cast exception on the Residents collection.
Approved
Last Updated: 23 Jul 2018 12:48 by Stefan
My team and I have spotted some odd behaviour with the latest version of JustMock (2015.3.929.5) when targeting a Windows Store app.

If we create a mock for an object in a helper method, the mock fails when making assertions for calls to the mock.

The following code illustrates the issue:

        [TestMethod]
        public void ThisWillFail()
        {
            var subject = CreateSubject();

            subject.DoSomething();

            subject.Assert(s => s.DoSomething(), Occurs.Once());
        }

        [TestMethod]
        public void ThisWillPass()
        {
            var subject = Mock.Create<ISubject>();

            subject.DoSomething();

            subject.Assert(s => s.DoSomething(), Occurs.Once());
        }

        public interface ISubject
        {
            void DoSomething();
        }

        private static ISubject CreateSubject()
        {
            return Mock.Create<ISubject>();
        }

In this code, the first test will fail but the second test will pass. The only difference is that, in the first test, we're setting up the mock in a helper method.

We have a "Unit Test Library (.NET for Windows Store apps)" referencing the Telerik.JustMock assembly. I have attached a simple project containing this implementation.

It's worth noting that the same code passes in a regular .NET class library; it only fails in a "Unit Test Library (.NET for Windows Store apps)". It's also worth noting that this worked under an older version of the assembly (2014.3.1021.2).

Any help would be appreciated, as we currently have around 3,000 tests and a good proportion of them set up their mocks using a helper method in this way.

Regards
William Cowell
Completed
Last Updated: 14 Oct 2015 08:48 by Stefan
eg

// Act
testSUT.Execute(1);

// Assert
myMockThing.Assert(x => x.Foo, Occurs.Once(), "calling Execute() with 1 should execute Foo due to blah");
Approved
Last Updated: 23 Jul 2018 13:04 by ADMIN
ADMIN
Created by: Vladi
Comments: 0
Type: Feature Request
2
Integrate with Simple Injector: https://simpleinjector.org/index.html similar to https://www.nuget.org/packages/JustMock.Unity and https://www.nuget.org/packages/JustMock.Mef/
Completed
Last Updated: 20 Mar 2014 12:38 by ADMIN
I'd like to be able to make recursive arrangements like Mock.Arrange(() => a.B.C.D).Returns(5) and to simultaneously specify that this arrangement should work on any instance, not just 'a'. If I simply use IgnoreInstance() in this case it will make an arrangement for the instance on which 'D' is called and not 'B' - so it doesn't work as I want it to.

What I'd like to do is simply state Mock.Arrange(() => Arg.IsAny<IFoo>().B.C.D).Returns(5) - in other words "Arrange for any object of type IFoo, when ".B.C.D" is called on it, that the value of D is 5.
1 2 3 4 5