From: Nat P. <nat...@b1...> - 2003-07-01 08:24:01
|
From: "Tim Mackinnon" <tim...@po...> > > Alternatively I would suggest not using mocks to test Mock, I don't think > > you need to. I think plain old fashioned exo-testing would cut it. > > I can comment that Nat and I tried that when we redid the current version > test first - and the tests we were writing were very hard and not driving > our design. One problem we found with exo-testing is that it is suffers from combinatorial explosion. The number of combinations of all possible decorators and stubs is HUGE! For example, there are three types of stubs in v0.09 (and I've added another), decorators to match method name, arguments and check an expectated call, and the argument check can take different numbers and types of constraint. The new dynamic mock is designed in terms of collaborating, pluggable objects. It's situations like this that mocks are perfect for because exo-testing alone becomes very difficult. Unfortunately, it does lead to mocks-testing-mocks headaches. Hopefully the documentation on the mockobjects Wiki and the examples in the source distribution will be helpful. Both need further work. > We also found that using mock maker was a big time saver too (hand > coding some of our interface changes was just too painful as well). Again, dynamic mocks would help here, but using the dynamock library to test itself is just too meta, even for my deranged tastes! Cheers, Nat. |