Approved
Last Updated: 25 Feb 2019 14:50 by ADMIN
Implement support for future mocking of public class with non-public arguments.
Such example is the future mocking of the class Timer with a private callback.
Completed
Last Updated: 07 Feb 2019 16:37 by ADMIN

Types that implement ISerializable can't be mocked anymore with the 2019.1.115.2 version resulting in System.ArgumentException. The issue is a regression compared to older versions of JustMock.

Example of such type is System.Reflection.Assembly. 

Completed
Last Updated: 07 Feb 2019 16:33 by ADMIN
A simple WinForms application crashes on start when JustMock(2019.1.115.2) profiler is enabled.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Create a new WinForms Application.
2. Start the application. In Debug it is most visible. 
3. After the application is started move the mouse in the middle of the application. The exact location is not important.
4. A FieldAccessExceptionis is thrown.

System.FieldAccessException: Attempt by method 'System.Windows.Forms.SafeNativeMethods._TrackMouseEvent(TRACKMOUSEEVENT)' to access field 'System.AccessibilityImprovements.useLegacyAccessibilityFeatures' failed.
   at System.Windows.Forms.SafeNativeMethods._TrackMouseEvent(TRACKMOUSEEVENT tme)
   at System.Windows.Forms.SafeNativeMethods.TrackMouseEvent(TRACKMOUSEEVENT tme)
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.HookMouseEvent()
   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativeWindow.WndProc(Message& m)
   at System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)


Temporary workaround: disable the JustMock Profiler from the JustMock menu while developing the application and enable it while running the tests.
A fix can be expected with the next official release. You can follow this item in order to receive status updates.
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: 16 Jan 2019 08:59 by ADMIN
If there are more that one mock objects existing in the test, Mock.Assert wrongly succeeds while evaluating arrangements for each mock, but not the very first one. This is a regression compared to an older version from 2012. The following sample demonstrates the case:
public interface IFoo
{
    void Bar();
}

[TestClass]
public class UnitTest1
{
    [TestMethod]
    public void TestMethod1()
    {
        var bar = Mock.Create<IFoo>();
        Mock.Arrange(() => bar.Bar()).OccursOnce();

        var foo = Mock.Create<IFoo>();
        Mock.Arrange(() => foo.Bar()).OccursOnce();

        Mock.Assert(foo); // Would wrongly succeed
        Mock.Assert(bar); // Would fail as expected
    }
}
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!
Completed
Last Updated: 16 Jan 2019 08:39 by ADMIN
Created by: Robert
Comments: 7
Type: Feature Request
13

			
Declined
Last Updated: 12 Oct 2018 10:29 by ADMIN
When using Mock.CreateLike<> we've found that trying to directly mock anything lower than two layers down on a concrete class (e.g. x => x.Layer1.Layer2.Property == "test") throws a NullReferenceException unless the profiler is enabled. It wasn't clear in the exception or the documentation relating to this method that the real issue was the profiler being disabled, and only by trial and error did we find the solution.
Declined
Last Updated: 12 Oct 2018 10:25 by ADMIN
Created by: Nick
Comments: 1
Type: Feature Request
0
If I define a fluent API, I might have an interface such as this:

public interface IRegistrar { 

IRegistrar UsingThis(object someThing);

IRegistrar UsingThat<TThatThing>() }

If I create a mock of this using the default Behaviour.RecursiveLoose and make no arrangements, calls to the methods will return new mocks of the type, rather than the same instance that was called. 

It would be nice to have a behaviour type that can return the same instance (in this case the mocked instance) without having to define a stub for each method call.

My code under test might look like:

IRegistrar reg;

reg

  .UsingThis(new object())

  .UsingThat<int>();

Currently, a test on the second call will fail if written against the mock assigned to 'reg'.
Declined
Last Updated: 12 Oct 2018 08:45 by ADMIN
this nuts, forcing me to answer a dialog for JustMock and JustTrace to turn off sending usage to Telerik.  Very poor UX.  Stop doing this.
Declined
Last Updated: 12 Oct 2018 08:43 by ADMIN
Created by: Brian
Comments: 2
Type: Bug Report
0
Resharper 10 code coverage have tests failing when arrange to have JustMock to return values from methods called under test. Perhaps one tool too many manipulating .NET objects behind-the-scenes at a time?
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.
Approved
Last Updated: 08 Oct 2018 10:50 by ADMIN
Currently, there is no out of  the box support for passing "out" and "ref" parameters for nonpublic API.
Completed
Last Updated: 12 Sep 2018 14:04 by ADMIN
MbUnitContextResolver gets wrongly initialized because of the weak check based on Gallio.Framework.Assertions.AssertionException type presence in the current app domain. Needs to be improved with some additional type check from mbunit assembly, MbUnit.Framework.TestFixtureAttribute for example.
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.
Approved
Last Updated: 06 Aug 2018 07:41 by ADMIN
Asynchronous test execution might be run in a separate thread (it depends of the environment and it is completely transparent) which causes arrangements to lose their context. That is why the expected mocked return value for DateTime.UtcNow calls the original code and finally the test fails.
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: 23 Jul 2018 13:39 by Stefan
Approved
Last Updated: 23 Jul 2018 13:31 by Kaloyan
Current behavior:
Mock.Arrange(xxx).IgnoreInstance();    //mock all future instances of the type on which I set an expectation.


Feature Request:
Mock.Arrange(xxx).IgnoreInstance().Next();    //mock the next instance of the type on which I set an expectation.

...and even better...

Mock.Arrange(xxx).IgnoreInstance().Skip(3).Next();   //mock the 4th instance of a type on which I set an expectation.