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

			
Completed
Last Updated: 29 Apr 2014 10:42 by Nacho
JustMock should work in multi-threaded scenarios.
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: 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.
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: 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");
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.
Completed
Last Updated: 14 Oct 2015 08:25 by Stefan
Make Justmock full edition as easy to use as the lite edition. For my team to use Justmock in Visual Studio and have unit tests run in the build system outside of VS, it is not practical to have justmock "installed" on everyone's machine. the process environment variables that need to be set is also not practically due to our custom build system; the process to start VS on our dev's enlistments is complicated and tightly controlled. Also, the profiler interferes with VS Code Coverage and we shouldn't have to use another UI to add the profiler, as that has to be done on every machine. We have to resort to just using JustMock Lite.
Completed
Last Updated: 12 May 2015 08:12 by Stefan
ADMIN
Created by: Tsvetomir
Comments: 0
Type: Feature Request
1

			
Completed
Last Updated: 07 Oct 2013 11:05 by Micah
Created by: Micah
Comments: 0
Type: Feature Request
1
Given:
public abstract class Foo
{
}

[Test]
public void test_foo()
{
    Mock.Create<Foo>(Behavior.Strict, Constructor.Mocked);
}

An exception is thrown at runtime saying "Abstract Type is not Accessible for Inheritance".  This doesn't lead you to the actual problem which is that I accidentally swapped the Behavior and the Constructor in the parameter order.  The same problem can occur if you attempt to call a constructor on an abstract object with the wrong number of parameters like so:
public abstract class Foo
{
    public Foo(int a, string b)
    {
    }
}

[Test]
public void test_foo()
{
    Mock.Create<Foo>(1, "foo", null);
}

This seems to be a problem with the compiler choosing the wrong overload to call and unfortunately there aren't a lot of solutions without changing the Create API.  Perhaps having an alternative to Mock.Create that is more explicit that we can use to avoid typos leading to exceptions that are difficult to make sense of or a hint in the exception message that suggests what the root cause might be?
Completed
Last Updated: 14 May 2013 12:12 by ADMIN
Please allow automocking support for classes with multiple constructors. This is important for projects not using DI containers but using dependency injection. A classic example is ASP.NET MVC and ASP.NET Web API where standard routing requires a constructor with no parameters. When using DI via constructors but without containers, the overloaded ctor specifies services/repositories and the default ctor passes the default services/repositories.
Completed
Last Updated: 07 Oct 2013 11:12 by Chris Eargle
Created by: Chris Eargle
Comments: 0
Type: Feature Request
1
"After struggling with TypeMock for an hour, I gave #JustMock a try and it works great! Thanks."

https://twitter.com/JohnFecko/status/316211813761040384 
Completed
Last Updated: 17 May 2013 12:29 by Stefan
ADMIN
Created by: Mihail
Comments: 0
Type: Feature Request
1
By default JustMock matches the mock parameters via Object.ReferenceEquals(...). It would be nice to match the mock parameters via Object.Equals(...) as well.

http://www.telerik.com/community/forums/justmock/general-discussions/parameter-matching.aspx
Completed
Last Updated: 01 Mar 2018 15:48 by ADMIN
Created by: Greg
Comments: 1
Type: Feature Request
1
Our team is moving to VSTS and not having an official solution to run JustMock tests through their build system is a deal-breaker.
Completed
Last Updated: 16 Jan 2019 11:55 by ADMIN
The main point behind this request is to add new command line option to JustMockRunner in order to enable profiler without need for being registered, more details about this feature can be found on MSDN at https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee471451(v=vs.100).aspx
Completed
Last Updated: 20 May 2019 09:44 by ADMIN
2019.R1 JustMock Test project templates need to be updated to support .Net Core, currently they are targeting just .Net Framework (see attached screen shot).
1 2