C# => Ruby Culture Shock #1: ‘Private’ Methods Ain’t So Private

This is the first in what I hope to be a series of little posts about the little flashes of ‘culture shock’ that I experience as I start to move from C# to Ruby as my day-to-day programming language.

Here we’re going to look at the subtle yet significant difference in how method access modifiers work in Ruby and C#.

Continue Reading »

Agile / Lean Software Development

Comments (1)


Generics and NMock

Maybe NMock supports this, but I can’t see how.

[Update 20/10/2007 - of course it does! See the comments for Aybars and Rob's solution.]

Let’s say I have a dependency of my SUT (system under test). That dependency looks like:

public interface IDatabase
  void Get<TTypeToFetch> ();
Now in my test, I want to expect that the SUT will try to fetch a Widget.

NMock gives me something which looks like it could help – a matcher. So I can code something like this:

Mockery mockery = new Mockery();
IDatabase db = mockery.NewMock<IDatabase>();
  .Method(new GenericMethodMatcher(Widget));
So I code up a little GenericMethodMatcher which casts the object passed to it as a MethodInfo and takes a look at the result of a call to GetGenericArguments() to see if it fins a Widget. So far, so exceedingly proper bo.

Unfortunately, the MethodInfo which NMock passes to the matcher is ‘open’, meaning that it still contains just the templated definitions of the types that could be passed to it at run-time. What I need in this instance, is a ‘closed’ MethodInfo object.

I guess this is hard for NMock to do, since it only works with the interface and not a concrete class. I have no idea what’s going on under the hood… Maybe it it possible but I’m just too stupid… I wonder how other mocking frameworks handle this scenario.


Comments (1)