chevron-thin-right chevron-thin-left brand cancel-circle search youtube-icon google-plus-icon linkedin-icon facebook-icon twitter-icon toolbox download check linkedin phone twitter-old google-plus facebook profile-male chat calendar profile-male
Welcome to Typemock Community! Here you can ask and receive answers from other community members. If you liked or disliked an answer or thread: react with an up- or downvote.
0 votes
This looks very cool. I Think it is used by RhinoMock. Would get rid of all those string member names and replace them with something that can be verified at compile time.

http://www.ayende.com/Blog/PermaLink,gu ... 9792b.aspx
asked by servotest bob (3.8k points)

3 Answers

0 votes
Hi,
First thank for the pointer.
We are currently thinking about better ways to set expectations and support code completion and compile-time errors.
We can of course use the method that you suggested and methods like easy-mock, but these can only access public members. There is no way to access private,internal and protected members.

What would you think of a feature that is integrated into Visual Studio that will allow you to do code completion (for all members) and give compilation warnings?
answered by scott (32k points)
0 votes
Compile time checking would be the most useful feature for me. I don't use visual studio but i guess most people do.
answered by servotest bob (3.8k points)
0 votes
I am happy to announce that this feature is part of version 3.5 of TypeMock.

TypeMock.NET supports Natural TypeMocks™
Natural TypeMocks™ are Strongly Typed and thus supports Compile Time Checks and Refactoring.
answered by scott (32k points)
...