mockobjects-java-dev

[MO-java-dev] Congrats for Dynamic Mocks

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

Hi,

I've just started playing with Dynamic Mocks and it looks just great!
From the little I have seen so far, it looks much compact than EasyMock
for example. It seems it is also more extensible and has already more
features.

I had to read the source code and the MockTest class to understand how
it works. When is a tutorial scheduled? :-)

I also think that the default return value for the String class should
be null and not "", as null is what anyone expects when an object has
not been defined. Thus, I find myself adding:

        mock.setupDefaultResult(String.class, null);        

in the setUp() methods of lots of my test cases.

What do you think?

Thanks
-Vincent

Re: [MO-java-dev] Congrats for Dynamic Mocks

[Steve F. <st...@m3...>]

From: "Vincent Massol" <vm...@oc...>
> I've just started playing with Dynamic Mocks and it looks just great!
> >From the little I have seen so far, it looks much compact than EasyMock
> for example. It seems it is also more extensible and has already more
> features.

glad you liked it. Nat did most of the work.

> I had to read the source code and the MockTest class to understand how
> it works. When is a tutorial scheduled? :-)

um. when we get around to it...

> I also think that the default return value for the String class should
> be null and not "", as null is what anyone expects when an object has
> not been defined. Thus, I find myself adding:
>
>         mock.setupDefaultResult(String.class, null);
>
> in the setUp() methods of lots of my test cases.
>
> What do you think?

surely that would apply to any return type, not just strings? Are your test
for getting property values back?

S.

RE: [MO-java-dev] Congrats for Dynamic Mocks

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

[snip]
> 
> > I also think that the default return value for the String class
should
> > be null and not "", as null is what anyone expects when an object
has
> > not been defined. Thus, I find myself adding:
> >
> >         mock.setupDefaultResult(String.class, null);
> >
> > in the setUp() methods of lots of my test cases.
> >
> > What do you think?
> 
> surely that would apply to any return type, not just strings? Are your
> test
> for getting property values back?

There are already default results for lots of types. I think the default
values should the ones defined by the JVM specification (which is null
for Objects).

Yes, my tests are for getting HTTP parameters (getParameter()).

Thanks
-Vincent

RE: [MO-java-dev] Congrats for Dynamic Mocks

[Nat P. <nat...@b1...>]

On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 20:43, Vincent Massol wrote:
> 
> There are already default results for lots of types. I think the default
> values should the ones defined by the JVM specification (which is null
> for Objects).

The idea behind the default return types is to avoid brittle or
overspecified tests.  If you want to test one particular interaction
between two objects, you don't want to setup or expect irrelevant method
calls so that the test doesn't break as you change other parts of the
tested class.  But conversely, you don't want your test to fail with an
error because the class receives an invalid value from a called method. 
So the default return types are used to return safe but "empty" values
from methods that have not been given explicit result values.

Cheers,
	Nat.

-- 
Dr. Nathaniel Pryce, Technical Director, B13media Ltd.
Studio 3a, 22-24 Highbury Grove, London N5 2EA, UK
http://www.b13media.com