Re: [Mockobjects-java-users] What is the correct way of writing this test ?

[Vincent M. <vm...@oc...>]

Steve,

I am trying to find out if a generic way of writing mocks is possible and if
a tool like MockMaker would be good enough. My question is thus: what would
be the algorithm for generating a mock implementation of ServletOutputStream
?

Thanks
-Vincent

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Freeman" <st...@m3...>
To: "Vincent Massol" <vm...@oc...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Mockobjects-java-users] What is the correct way of writing
this test ?


> This is example is OK as a very first cut at writing a servlet test. You
would expect some kind of intermediate objects start to appear as soon as
things became much more complicated. You certainly can't look for expected
writes because of potential bufferings in the stream.
>
> setExpectedContent is not much different for a string than just getting it
at the end. One thing I have worked on is a setExpectedSegment, which checks
if a particular (small) substring is present. Either way, you should get
away from testing strings like this as soon as you can, but you need to
start somewhere.
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vincent Massol" <vm...@oc...>
> To: <moc...@li...>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 5:40 PM
> Subject: [Mockobjects-java-users] What is the correct way of writing this
test ?
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a simpe servlet with a doGet() method that simply prints a text
to
> > the output stream. I would like to know what is the correct way of
writing a
> > unit test for that method. It seems the suggested way (from the Mock
Object
> > sample and source code of MockHttpServletResponse) is to write:
> >
> > {
> >       SampleServlet servlet = new SampleServlet();
> >       MockHttpServletRequest request = new MockHttpServletRequest();
> >       MockHttpServletResponse response = new MockHttpServletResponse();
> >
> >       servlet.doGet(request, response);
> >
> >       String expected = "<h1>A request</h1>";
> >       String result = response.getOutputStreamContents();
> >       assertEquals(expected, result);
> > }
> >
> > However, I don't believe this is the canonical way of writing this test.
I
> > think
> > it would be more appropriate and consistent to write (even if longer) :
> >
> > {
> >       SampleServlet servlet = new SampleServlet();
> >       MockHttpServletRequest request = new MockHttpServletRequest();
> >       MockHttpServletResponse response = new MockHttpServletResponse();
> >
> >       MockServletOutputStream output = new MockServletOutputStream();
> >
> >       output.setExpectedContent("<h1>A request</h1>");
> >       response.setupOutputStream(output);
> >
> >       servlet.doGet(request, response);
> >
> >       output.verify();
> > }
> >
> > Question 1 : What do you think ? Should the example be changed ? Should
the
> > MockHttpServletResponse.getOutputStreamContents() method be removed ?
> > Question 2 : Is it possible to automatically generate a mock of
> > ServletOutputStream ? It would certainly not generate a
setExpectedContent()
> > method, right ? It would maybe generate a setExpectedWrite() method but
that
> > would not represent the full buffer...  ServletOutputStream is an object
> > that gets written to by the method under test, which means we need some
> > accessors to get back the data. How can Mock Maker generate these
accessors
> > in a generic way ?
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mockobjects-java-users mailing list
> > Moc...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-users
> >
>