Mock callbacks

[elazar]

I may be unique in this notion, but I sometimes find myself needing mock callbacks. I generally use these in tests in place of actual callbacks I'd pass to methods. I do two things with these:

1. Have code under test invoke them, where I may provide a function body that performs assertions against the callback parameters.
2. Assert that they were invoked, so I know that any desired interaction and/or parameter assertions actually happened.

The latter is the main annoying point, as I've tended to have to keep a separate flag that the function body modifies to indicate that it's been called.

Interoperability with Phake's API to verify calls (e.g. any, none, a specific quantity, etc.) and perform parameter assertions against callbacks, as we're currently able to do with mock object methods, would be a lot nicer than code I've tended to write to accomplish the same thing.

[mlively]

This was actually very much on my radar as something I wanted to do. I will
get it ready for the next release.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Matthew Turland notifications@github.com
wrote:

I may be unique in this notion, but I sometimes find myself needing mock
callbacks. I generally use these in tests in place of actual callbacks I'd
pass to methods. I do two things with these:

1. Have code under test invoke them, where I may provide a function
   body that performs assertions against the callback parameters.
2. Assert that they were invoked, so I know that any desired
   interaction and/or parameter assertions actually happened.

The latter is the main annoying point, as I've tended to have to keep a
separate flag that the function body modifies to indicate that it's been
called.

Interoperability with Phake's API to verify calls (e.g. any, none, a
specific quantity, etc.) and perform parameter assertions would be a lot
nicer than code I've tended to write to accomplish the same thing.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#200.