Re: [MO-java-dev] MockConnection

[Jeff M. <je...@mk...>]

On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 22:43, Steve Freeman wrote:
> > Actually the general consensus is that mocks don't need tests. The
> idea
> > is to keep them really simply so there's nothing in them worth
> testing.
> > That's the good thing about the expectation stuff. That's got tests
> and
> > that's the bit that doe's the work.
> 
> Actually, I'm beginning to turn on this one. For long-term mocks, such
> as in the library, it's sometimes hard to tell what they do, and it
> might not be a bad idea to write the unit tests for documentation --
> rather than more javadoc.
> 
> S.
> 

Hmm, not sure, shouldn't the code be as self explanatory as possible.
Most of the the mocks should be pretty simple.

I don't think there's any need for a blanket requirement on mocks to
have tests, but if people provide them that's fine. I find that if you
write the mocks as you write the code and the test you don't need a
test.