RE: [MO-java-dev] Common test cases

[<Vin...@ge...>]

I don't know exactly what you are trying to test, but I know some guys out
there that will recommend you use Cactus ;-) if you end up having too much
functionality in your Mocks.

Vincent

> -----Original Message-----
> From: moc...@li...
> [mailto:moc...@li...]On Behalf Of
> Trenton Lipscomb
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 13:35
> To: 'Jeff Martin'; MockObjects
> Subject: RE: [MO-java-dev] Common test cases
>
>
> Basically, I think ServletContext and ServletConfig need some
> real functionality. Because of this, it precludes them from
> being a mock. They need real functionality because it's not
> sufficient to simply test that a servlet calls methods on a
> MockServletContext, or that it sets the proper attributes. I
> think you actually need real functionality here, in order to
> have the servlet progress far enough along its execution path
> to make testing useful.
>
> This is certainly true for anything we tried to do for
> ServletConfig. I frequtly do a lot of setup within my
> init(ServletConfig) method, and without a real ServletConfig,
> I can't get the servlet to a point where doing any tests on
> it are meaningful. I need a real config so that the servlet
> can init properly. Then, I can test it using
> MockServletRequests and Responses.
>
> *trenton
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Martin [mailto:je...@mk...]
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 10:00 AM
> To: MockObjects
> Subject: RE: [MO-java-dev] Common test cases
>
>
> Sorry, not quite sure I understand.
>
> My intent for the standard test cases was just to start a by having a
> commonly use set of objects.
>
> e.g.
>
> protected final MockHttpRequest request = new MockHttpRequest();
> protected final MockHttpResponse response = new MockHttpResponse();
> protected final MockServletContext context = new MockServletContext();
>
> ...
>
> protected void setUp(){
> 	request.setupGetServletContext(context);
> }
>
> ...
>
> protected void verify(){
> 	request.verify();
> 	response.verify();
> 	context.verify();
> }
>
> That kinda thing.
>
> On Wed, 2002-06-19 at 22:18, Trenton Lipscomb wrote:
> > Yes, and just to be clear, these should be partial (or even
> full) implementations of the interfaces. These won't be
> mocks, since we'll actually need the classes to fill their
> role and relay configuration data to the servlet.
> >
> > *trenton
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vincent Massol [mailto:vm...@oc...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 12:33 PM
> > To: Moc...@li...
> > Subject: RE: [MO-java-dev] Common test cases
> >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > We need to make sure they are still quite generic though.
> >
> > -Vincent
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: moc...@li...
> > > [mailto:moc...@li...]
> On Behalf Of
> > > Jeff Martin
> > > Sent: 19 June 2002 16:48
> > > To: MockObjects
> > > Subject: [MO-java-dev] Common test cases
> > >
> > > I've been starting to thing that it might be nice to have some
> > abstract
> > > test cases which perform common and boring setup of mock objects.
> > >
> > > Like setting up servlet requests and all those context type stuff.
> > >
> > > Thoughts/objects?
> > > --
> > > Jeff Martin
> > >
> > > Memetic Engineer
> > >
> > > http://www.custommonkey.org/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > --
> > > --
> > >                    Bringing you mounds of caffeinated joy
> > >                    >>>     http://thinkgeek.com/sf    <<<
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
> > > Moc...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev
> >
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
> >                    Bringing you mounds of caffeinated joy
> >                    >>>     http://thinkgeek.com/sf    <<<
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
> > Moc...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
> >                    Bringing you mounds of caffeinated joy
> >                    >>>     http://thinkgeek.com/sf    <<<
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
> > Moc...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev
> --
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Sponsored by:
> ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
> Moc...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Sponsored by:
> ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
> Moc...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev