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.

JustMock should work in multi-threaded scenarios.

JustMock should be able to mock in WP8 assemblies.

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.

AxoCover is test runner and a code coverage tool.

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

https://github.com/axodox/AxoCover

Implement support for executing JustMock tests on Linux

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.

JustMock should be able to mock private methods in Silverlight.

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.

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
}

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.

It would be good if we could use named parameters inside Mock.Arrange method.

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.

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/

eg

// Act
testSUT.Execute(1);

// Assert
myMockThing.Assert(x => x.Foo, Occurs.Once(), "calling Execute() with 1 should execute Foo due to blah");

I'm a user that is refactoring a legacy system which has a certain component to which I do not have the source. It uses COM interop heavily. I would like to be able to future-mock instances of RCW's so that I can write tests for that component.

The JutMock task for Azure Pipeline is missing the option to execute the tests with Visual Studio 2019. Check the attached screenshot.