Java EasyMock：如何在没有警告的情况下创建泛化类的模拟？
声明：本页面是StackOverFlow热门问题的中英对照翻译，遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议，如果您需要使用它，必须同样遵循CC BY-SA许可，注明原文地址和作者信息，同时你必须将它归于原作者（不是我）：StackOverFlow
原文地址: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/56954/
Warning: these are provided under cc-by-sa 4.0 license. You are free to use/share it, But you must attribute it to the original authors (not me):
StackOverFlow
EasyMock: How do I create a mock of a genericized class without a warning?
提问by Kevin Wong
The code
编码
private SomeClass<Integer> someClass;
someClass = EasyMock.createMock(SomeClass.class);
gives me a warning "Type safety: The expression of type SomeClass needs unchecked conversion to conform to SomeClass<Integer>".
给我一个警告“类型安全：SomeClass 类型的表达式需要未经检查的转换以符合 SomeClass<Integer>”。
回答by Tom Hawtin - tackline
The two obvious routes are to suppress the warning or mock a subclass.
两条明显的路线是抑制警告或模拟子类。
private static class SomeClass_Integer extends SomeClass<Integer>();
private SomeClass<Integer> someClass;
...
someClass = EasyMock.createMock(SomeClass_Integer.class);
(Disclaimer: Not even attempted to compile this code, nor have I used EasyMock.)
（免责声明：我什至没有尝试编译这段代码，也没有使用过 EasyMock。）
回答by Cem Catikkas
You can annotate the test method with @SuppressWarnings("unchecked"). I agree this is some what of a hack but in my opinion it's acceptable on test code.
您可以使用 注释测试方法@SuppressWarnings("unchecked")。我同意这是一种黑客行为，但在我看来，它在测试代码中是可以接受的。
@Test
@SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public void someTest() {
SomeClass<Integer> someClass = EasyMock.createMock(SomeClass.class);
}
回答by Barend
AFAIK, you can't avoid the unchecked warning when a class name literal is involved, and the SuppressWarningsannotation is the only way to handle this.
AFAIK，当涉及类名文字时，您无法避免未经检查的警告，并且SuppressWarnings注释是处理此问题的唯一方法。
Note that it is good form to narrow the scope of the SuppressWarningsannotation as much as possible. You can apply this annotation to a single local variable assignment:
请注意，尽可能缩小SuppressWarnings注释的范围是一种很好的形式。您可以将此注释应用于单个局部变量赋值：
public void testSomething() {
@SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
Foo<Integer> foo = EasyMock.createMock(Foo.class);
// Rest of test method may still expose other warnings
}
or use a helper method:
或使用辅助方法：
@SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
private static <T> Foo<T> createFooMock() {
return (Foo<T>)EasyMock.createMock(Foo.class);
}
public void testSomething() {
Foo<String> foo = createFooMock();
// Rest of test method may still expose other warnings
}
回答by Barry John Williams
I worked around this problem by introducing a subclass, e.g.
我通过引入一个子类来解决这个问题，例如
private abstract class MySpecialString implements MySpecial<String>{};
Then create a mock of that abstract class:
然后创建该抽象类的模拟：
MySpecial<String> myMock = createControl().createMock(MySpecialString.class);
回答by chim
I know this goes against the question, but why not create a List rather than a Mock List?
我知道这与问题背道而驰，但为什么不创建一个列表而不是一个模拟列表？
It's less code and easier to work with, for instance if you want to add items to the list.
它的代码更少且更易于使用，例如，如果您想将项目添加到列表中。
MyItem myItem = createMock(myItem.class);
List<MyItem> myItemList = new ArrayList<MyItem>();
myItemList.add(myItem);
Instead of
代替
MyItem myItem = createMock(myItem.class);
@SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
List<MyItem> myItemList = createMock(ArrayList.class);
expect(myItemList.get(0)).andReturn(myItem);
replay(myItemList);
