Adding Ordering To Expectations A Layering Approach In Rocks

Hey everyone! JasonBock here, diving into an interesting idea for Rocks, my lean mocking framework. I've been pondering the addition of an ordering feature when setting expectations. Let's break down the concept and explore how we might implement it without bloating the core functionality.

The Vision: Ordering Expectations

The core idea revolves around the ability to define the order in which mocked methods are expected to be called. Imagine a scenario like this:

var expectations = new IWorkCreateExpectations();
expectations.Methods.Work().Order(1);
expectations.Methods.Perform().Order(0);

In this example, we're specifying that Perform() should be invoked before Work(). This level of control can be incredibly valuable in testing scenarios where the sequence of method calls is crucial for verifying behavior. This feature enhances the flexibility of Rocks and allows for more precise testing scenarios. Imagine testing a complex workflow where the order of operations matters significantly; this feature would be a game-changer.

Currently, Rocks provides a solid foundation for mocking types and setting expectations. My primary goal is to maintain this lean approach. I'm not keen on adding features simply because other frameworks offer them. That path often leads to feature bloat and a less focused tool. However, the ordering feature feels like it could address a genuine need in certain testing scenarios.

The Challenge: Keeping it Lean

The challenge lies in incorporating this functionality without sacrificing Rocks' core philosophy of being a lightweight and efficient mocking framework. We need to ensure that adding this feature doesn't introduce unnecessary complexity or overhead for users who don't require it. Maintaining a lean framework is crucial for performance and ease of use. We don't want to weigh down the core functionality with features that are only needed in specific cases. This is where the concept of layering comes into play.

The Solution: A Layering Approach

My current thinking leans towards a "layering" approach. This involves making the ordering feature an opt-in component, ensuring that it only impacts projects where it's explicitly enabled. Layering features is a great way to add functionality without increasing the complexity for all users. It allows us to provide advanced capabilities while maintaining a clean and focused core.

One potential implementation involves using an assembly-level attribute for configuration:

[assembly: Rock(typeof(IWork), BuildType.Create, ordering: AddOrdering.Yes)]

In this example, the Rock attribute would be extended with an ordering parameter. Setting ordering to AddOrdering.Yes would instruct Rocks to generate the necessary code to support ordered expectations for the IWork interface. This approach keeps the core Rocks library clean and only introduces the ordering feature when explicitly requested.

This opt-in mechanism ensures that users who don't need the ordering feature won't incur any performance penalties or code bloat. It's a way of providing advanced capabilities without impacting the core user experience.

Diving Deeper: Configuration Options

Let's delve a bit further into how this configuration might work. The BuildType.Create part specifies how the mock should be generated (e.g., creating a new type). The ordering: AddOrdering.Yes part is where the magic happens. By setting this, you're telling Rocks to weave in the necessary logic to handle the order in which your mocked methods are called.

Think of it like adding a special ingredient to a recipe. If you want the extra flavor, you add it in. If not, you stick to the original recipe. This keeps things simple and efficient. This approach aligns perfectly with Rocks' philosophy of being a lean and mean mocking machine. We want to empower users with powerful features, but without forcing them to carry extra baggage they don't need.

The beauty of this approach is its flexibility. We can easily extend the Rock attribute to accommodate other optional features in the future. This creates a consistent and extensible mechanism for layering functionality onto the core Rocks framework. It allows Rocks to evolve and adapt to changing needs without sacrificing its core principles.

Exploring Global Configuration

While the assembly-level attribute provides a good starting point, I'm also considering other ways to configure this feature. Perhaps a global setting within the project or even an external configuration file could offer a more centralized approach.

Imagine a scenario where you want ordering enabled for all mocks within a specific project. Modifying every assembly attribute could become tedious. A global configuration option would streamline this process, allowing you to enable ordering with a single setting. This could be particularly useful in large projects with numerous mock implementations.

Global configuration options offer a convenient way to manage settings across an entire project. They reduce the need for repetitive configuration and ensure consistency across your codebase. However, we need to carefully consider the trade-offs between convenience and explicitness. Global settings can sometimes make it harder to understand the specific configuration of a particular mock.

This leads to the question of discoverability. How would a user know that ordering is enabled globally? Clear documentation and potentially IDE integration could help address this challenge. Ultimately, the goal is to find a balance between ease of use and transparency.

Another interesting avenue to explore is the use of an external configuration file. This file could contain a set of rules and settings that govern how Rocks behaves within your project. This approach offers a high degree of flexibility and allows you to customize Rocks' behavior without modifying your code. External configuration files are a powerful tool for managing complex settings and adapting to different environments.

Unanswered Questions and Next Steps

Currently, I'm unsure about the best path forward for global configuration. There are several options to weigh, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. More research and experimentation are needed to determine the optimal solution. I'm also open to suggestions and feedback from the community. Your insights are invaluable in shaping the future of Rocks.

Community Input: Your Thoughts Matter!

I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this layering approach and the ordering feature itself. Do you see this as a valuable addition to Rocks? How would you envision using it in your testing workflows? Are there any potential drawbacks or challenges that we should consider?

Your feedback is crucial in guiding the development of Rocks. I believe that a collaborative approach is essential for creating a truly useful and robust mocking framework. So, please don't hesitate to share your thoughts, ideas, and concerns. Together, we can make Rocks even better.

Conclusion: A Path Forward for Rocks

Adding ordering to expectations in Rocks presents an exciting opportunity to enhance the framework's capabilities. By embracing a layering approach, we can introduce this feature without compromising Rocks' core principles of being lean and efficient. The assembly-level attribute offers a solid foundation, and the exploration of global configuration options promises even greater flexibility. The future of Rocks looks bright, and with your input, we can ensure it continues to meet the evolving needs of the .NET development community.

I'm excited to continue this journey and look forward to your thoughts and suggestions! Let's build something amazing together!