Initial version of mocking support. There is still quite a bit of

Initial version of mocking support. There is still quite a bit of 
enhancement possible especially in the verification part, but I think
it would be good to get the core in before adding too much, to get 
early feedback.
Committed: https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/detail?r=9183

[Siggi Cherem (dart-lang), 2012-06-26 21:35:44]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/expect...
File lib/unittest/expect.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/expect...
lib/unittest/expect.dart:103: FailureHandler getFailureHandler() {
please use a getter, or change to getOrCreateFailureHandler

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.dart
File lib/unittest/mock.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:38: 
maybe this should be it's own library?
#library('mock');

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:45: 
remove empty line

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:76: class _NoArg {
we are also doing the same thing for _SpreadArgsHelper. Can we share some of
this code. Maybe share the _Sentinel/_NoArg types?

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:84: final noArg = const _NoArg();
=> _noArg (make noArg private to this library.)

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:96: bool isOneShot;
maybe instead of 1 vs many, could we specify a number of times? For instance:
m.when('foo', 3).thenReturn(3, count: 3);

would be equivalent to:
m.when('foo', 3).thenReturn(3);
m.when('foo', 3).thenReturn(3);
m.when('foo', 3).thenReturn(3);

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:143: argMatchers.add(wrapMatcher(arg9));
style nit: pine trees!! please fix

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:203: Behavior thenReturn(value) {
=> consider adding a count parameter ?

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:247: class LogEntryList {
implements/extends List<LogEntry>?

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:386: continue; // No return values left in this Behavior.
should we do some cleanup of the behaviour list if this rv is no longer useful
anymore (e.g. remove an rv that is a one-shot after it's used?

[gram, 2012-06-26 23:39:59]

PTAL

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/expect...
File lib/unittest/expect.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/expect...
lib/unittest/expect.dart:103: FailureHandler getFailureHandler() {
On 2012/06/26 21:35:44, sigmund wrote:
> please use a getter, or change to getOrCreateFailureHandler

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.dart
File lib/unittest/mock.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:38: 
On 2012/06/26 21:35:44, sigmund wrote:
> maybe this should be it's own library?
> #library('mock');

I thought about that, but I think that as long as we keep the matchers in
unittest we may as well put mock in too. Alternatively we should separate these
into three, unittest, matchers and mock.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:45: 
On 2012/06/26 21:35:44, sigmund wrote:
> remove empty line

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:76: class _NoArg {
On 2012/06/26 21:35:44, sigmund wrote:
> we are also doing the same thing for _SpreadArgsHelper. Can we share some of
> this code. Maybe share the _Sentinel/_NoArg types?

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:84: final noArg = const _NoArg();
On 2012/06/26 21:35:44, sigmund wrote:
> => _noArg (make noArg private to this library.)

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:96: bool isOneShot;
On 2012/06/26 21:35:44, sigmund wrote:
> maybe instead of 1 vs many, could we specify a number of times? For instance:
> m.when('foo', 3).thenReturn(3, count: 3);
> 
> would be equivalent to:
> m.when('foo', 3).thenReturn(3);
> m.when('foo', 3).thenReturn(3);
> m.when('foo', 3).thenReturn(3);

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:143: argMatchers.add(wrapMatcher(arg9));
On 2012/06/26 21:35:44, sigmund wrote:
> style nit: pine trees!! please fix

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:203: Behavior thenReturn(value) {
On 2012/06/26 21:35:44, sigmund wrote:
> => consider adding a count parameter ?

Done.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:247: class LogEntryList {
On 2012/06/26 21:35:44, sigmund wrote:
> implements/extends List<LogEntry>? 

You can't use extends like that, only implements, which is not that useful.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:386: continue; // No return values left in this Behavior.
On 2012/06/26 21:35:44, sigmund wrote:
> should we do some cleanup of the behaviour list if this rv is no longer useful
> anymore (e.g. remove an rv that is a one-shot after it's used?

Maybe, maybe not. If perf was an issue we could move exhausted behaviors to
another list. But it seems to me there may be some value in keeping the
behaviors around, so we know which behaviors were exercised how many times.
Nonetheless, right now we aree not using it so I am going to take your advice,
remove it, and add a comment.

[Siggi Cherem (dart-lang), 2012-06-26 23:58:27]

lgtm! (see comments below)

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.dart
File lib/unittest/mock.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:38: 
On 2012/06/26 23:39:59, gram wrote:
> On 2012/06/26 21:35:44, sigmund wrote:
> > maybe this should be it's own library?
> > #library('mock');
> 
> I thought about that, but I think that as long as we keep the matchers in
> unittest we may as well put mock in too. Alternatively we should separate
these
> into three, unittest, matchers and mock.

Then it would be nice if this documentation is attached to something so that
will make it visible in api.dartlang.org. Maybe move it down and make it the
dartdoc of the Mock class?

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/2001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:386: continue; // No return values left in this Behavior.
On 2012/06/26 23:39:59, gram wrote:
> On 2012/06/26 21:35:44, sigmund wrote:
> > should we do some cleanup of the behaviour list if this rv is no longer
useful
> > anymore (e.g. remove an rv that is a one-shot after it's used?
> 
> Maybe, maybe not. If perf was an issue we could move exhausted behaviors to
> another list. But it seems to me there may be some value in keeping the
> behaviors around, so we know which behaviors were exercised how many times.
> Nonetheless, right now we aree not using it so I am going to take your advice,
> remove it, and add a comment.
> 

Ok - I'm also not sure what are the performance implications of doing the
removal (since removal is linear in list implementations)

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/9001/lib/unittest/mock.dart
File lib/unittest/mock.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/9001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:75: final _noArg = const _Sentinel();
then we can just the value '_sentinel' that is in unittest.dart :). In fact, you
should have that _sentinel === _noArg at this point

[gram, 2012-06-27 17:58:48]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/9001/lib/unittest/mock.dart
File lib/unittest/mock.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/10679005/diff/9001/lib/unittest/mock.d...
lib/unittest/mock.dart:75: final _noArg = const _Sentinel();
On 2012/06/26 23:58:27, sigmund wrote:
> then we can just the value '_sentinel' that is in unittest.dart :). In fact,
you
> should have that _sentinel === _noArg at this point

Yes, they are equivalent but I prefer this separate 'instantiation' in case we
do split the libraries at some point.