Completed
Last Updated: 12 May 2015 08:12 by Stefan
ADMIN
Created by: Tsvetomir
Comments: 0
Type: Feature Request
1

			
Completed
Last Updated: 16 Sep 2014 08:02 by Peter Stefan
Created by: Peter Stefan
Comments: 2
Type: Feature Request
0
Remove obfuscation of exceptions thrown by JustMock, because they can cause failing builds on Jenkins
Declined
Last Updated: 26 May 2014 14:35 by Stefan
Created by: Kaloyan
Comments: 1
Type: Feature Request
1
Using InOrder() in the arrange sometimes may be not appropriate. I would like to be able to do this in the assert. Instead of having the following workflow:
//Arrange (initial conditions)
// setup expected results (ordering)
// Act
// Assert

, I will have this:
//Arrange
//Act
// Assert (expected results in order)
Completed
Last Updated: 30 Apr 2014 09:01 by Stefan
Created by: Eric
Comments: 1
Type: Feature Request
0
If possible, update Microsoft.Practices.ServiceLocation to 1.2 or change NuGet package to > 1.0 instead of = 1.0.
Completed
Last Updated: 29 Apr 2014 10:42 by Nacho
JustMock should work in multi-threaded scenarios.
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: 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: 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: 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: 21 May 2013 13:39 by Kaloyan
Should be able to arrange against non-public methods taking ref or out arguments as parameter.
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: 17 May 2013 12:23 by Kaloyan
Created by: Kaloyan
Comments: 0
Type: Feature Request
0
I'd like to intercept a call to a generic method similar to:

public  class MyClass
{
    public void MyMethod<T>()
    {
        //
    }
}

Now I want to arrange a MyClass instance so I can assert that the method has been call only once for an specific type and never for any other type. I'm tryig to do something similar to:

var service = Mock.Create<MyClass>();
Mock.Arrange(() => service.MyMethod<T>()).OccursNever();

So I can assert the generic method is never called.
Completed
Last Updated: 14 May 2013 12:13 by ADMIN
Created by: Philip Japikse
Comments: 1
Type: Feature Request
0
As a developer, I want to be able to automock classes that have concrete classes injected
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: 21 Nov 2012 00:37 by Philip Japikse
Created by: Philip Japikse
Comments: 0
Type: Feature Request
0
Currently, I can only assert all when automocking.  It would be nice to be able to assert individually.  container.Assert<IAccount>().  If we implement my other item (http://feedback.telerik.com/Project/105/Feedback/Details/850-distinguish-between-automocked-items-when-multiple-of-the-same-are-in-the-constru) then it would be container.Assert<IAccount>[0] if there were more than one IAccount in the constructor.
1 2 3