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.,gu ... 9792b.aspx
asked by servotest bob (3.8k points)

3 Answers

0 votes
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)