in reply to Re^4: ISA but no farther?
in thread ISA but no farther?

As a variation on ysth's suggestion, you could require that the mocking class implement the 'mocks' method:

ref($obj) eq 'OP' || $obj->can('mocks') && $obj->mocks('OP')

Of course, if 'mocks' it handled through AUTOLOAD, this will fail.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: ISA but no farther?
by diotalevi (Canon) on Jul 20, 2006 at 18:22 UTC

    Is ->mocks a standard method name? I'd use it if it were.

    ⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊

[reply]

      I have no idea. I've never played with MockObject or anything else similar.

      It was more an idea to specify an API, so that you provide a way for people to bypass your checks.

      In looking, it seems that Test::MockObject gets named through fake_module, and I don't see that it actually keeps track of the class that it's mocking.

      I'm still not sure exactly what the overall purpose of this is, so I don't know if just providing a documented way for people to override the check is sufficient. (you could also submit the necessary patches to chromatic for Test::MockObject, so it's been implemented somewhere)

[reply]
        Test::MockObject doesn't keep track of the class; you'd have to add a mocks method to it and call ->mocks('OP') in your test script and ->mocks() eq 'OP' in the actual module.

        Test::MockObject::Extends does keep track, in @{ref($obj)."::ISA"}, but you'd have to say ref($obj) =~ /^T::MO::E::/ to detect a mock object.

        If people really do need to check for non-subclassed classes, both Test::MockObject types ought to be fixed to make this painless. But I still don't see why that would be necessary.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom