Document Mockito.after() method about mockito HOT 5 CLOSED

I still like the after method, can't we just keep it as an alias ?

from mockito.

In this case, I'd rather have a single opinionated method (unless I'm convinced otherwise :).

How about this:

mock(foo, after(10).times(2)).bar()
VS
mock(foo, during(10).times(2)).bar()

It feels that 'after' has higher chance of producing ambiguous looking test code.

from mockito.

Also, 'after' can be interpreted as:

1. wait given amount of time
2. then validate invocations that happen after the time period (e.g. excluding invocations that happened during the time).

AFAIR the implementation does not work this way. The impl expects the invocation(s) 'during' this time :)

from mockito.

ok I agree, I now remember what this call did. Never mind my original comment.

However, looking at your example, it would feel better if an alias could support TimeUnit.

mock(foo, during(10).times(2)).bar()
mock(foo, during(10, SECONDS).times(2)).bar()

from mockito.

Yeah, this kind of alias makes perfect sense.

from mockito.