mockobjects-java-dev

[MO-java-dev] How to test double conditional implementation, which could change...

[Francois B. <fb...@us...>]

Hi !

I have a test which tests for the presence of two keys in a Map.  If one
or both keys are missing, do A, else B.  So, here's what the code looks
like at the moment:
if (false =3D=3D getConstantsMap().containsKey(constantName + CLASS_SUFFIX)
        || false =3D=3D getConstantsMap().containsKey(constantName +
        VALUE_SUFFIX)) {

No, Java is able to short-circuit the evaluation of a condition if the
truth of a condition can be determined early.  Right now, I am setting up
my dynamock so:
final Mock mockMap =3D new Mock(Map.class);
mockMap.expectAndReturn("containsKey",
        C.eq(constantName + ".class"),
        false);
mockMap.expectAndReturn("containsKey",
        C.eq(constantName + ".value"),
        true);
mockMap.expect("put",
        C.args(
                C.eq(constantName + ".class"),
                C.eq(Integer.TYPE)
        )
);

My test fails because Java short circuits the evaluation of the second
condition.  I changed to using a matchAndReturn for the second
containsKey, but this is an implementation detail.

What would you guys recommend ?  Should I use matchAndReturn for both
containsKey() setups, or should I change the implementation to use temp
variables and then test these ?

Thanks,
Fran=E7ois
--
  Francois Beausoleil
  Developer of Java Gui Builder
  http://jgb.sourceforge.net/

Re: [MO-java-dev] How to test double conditional implementation, which could change...

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

You can use the 'Or' Constraint to test for a containsKey call with either
the keys.  If used with expectAndReturn, the mock will expect *one* call to
containsKey for *either* of those values.  This will take into account short
circuited evaluation.

However, if you don't want your test to expose details of short circuited
evaluation, you can set up two matchAndReturn calls for both keys.  I would
recommend this option because you are stubbing the behaviour of the map and
testing the behaviour of your object in response to what is in the map.  The
exact sequence of calls that your object makes to examine the map are not
important; only what the map returns to your object and what your object
does in response.

E.g.  Using Or:

String constantClass = constantName + ".class";
String constantValue = constantName + ".value";

mockMap.expectAndReturn( "containsKey",

C.or(C.eq(constantClass),c.eq(constantValue)),
                                             false );

E.g. using matchAndReturn:

mockMap.matchAndReturn( "containsKey", constantClass, false );
mockMap.matchAndReturn( "containsKey", constantValue, false );

Cheers,
            Nat.


P.S. I would recommend refactoring your if statement:

    private boolean definesConstant( String name ) {
        return getConstantsMap().containsKey( name );
    }

    ...

        String constantClass = constantName + CLASS_SUFFIX;
        String constantValue = constantName + VALUE_SUFFIX;

        if ( !definesConstant(constantClass) ||
!definesConstant(constantValue) ) {
            ... blah blah blah ...
        } else {
            ... blah blah blah ...
        }

_______________________
Dr. Nathaniel Pryce
B13media Ltd.
http://www.b13media.com
+44 (0)7712 526 661

----- Original Message -----
From: "Francois Beausoleil" <fb...@us...>
To: <moc...@li...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 6:14 AM
Subject: [MO-java-dev] How to test double conditional implementation, which
could change...


Hi !

I have a test which tests for the presence of two keys in a Map.  If one
or both keys are missing, do A, else B.  So, here's what the code looks
like at the moment:
if (false == getConstantsMap().containsKey(constantName + CLASS_SUFFIX)
        || false == getConstantsMap().containsKey(constantName +
        VALUE_SUFFIX)) {

No, Java is able to short-circuit the evaluation of a condition if the
truth of a condition can be determined early.  Right now, I am setting up
my dynamock so:
final Mock mockMap = new Mock(Map.class);
mockMap.expectAndReturn("containsKey",
        C.eq(constantName + ".class"),
        false);
mockMap.expectAndReturn("containsKey",
        C.eq(constantName + ".value"),
        true);
mockMap.expect("put",
        C.args(
                C.eq(constantName + ".class"),
                C.eq(Integer.TYPE)
        )
);

My test fails because Java short circuits the evaluation of the second
condition.  I changed to using a matchAndReturn for the second
containsKey, but this is an implementation detail.

What would you guys recommend ?  Should I use matchAndReturn for both
containsKey() setups, or should I change the implementation to use temp
variables and then test these ?

Thanks,
François
--
  Francois Beausoleil
  Developer of Java Gui Builder
  http://jgb.sourceforge.net/


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU
Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner.
Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission!
INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php
_______________________________________________
Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
Moc...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev

Re: [MO-java-dev] How to test double conditional implementation, which could change...

[Francois B. <fb...@us...>]

Hi !

Thanks for the suggestion.  I really want to hide the implementation
detail, so I will use matchAndReturn.

Thanks for the refactoring suggestion too :)

Bye !
Fran=E7ois

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:42:06 +0100, "Nat Pryce" <nat...@b1...>
said:
> You can use the 'Or' Constraint to test for a containsKey call with
> either
> the keys.  If used with expectAndReturn, the mock will expect *one* call
> to
> containsKey for *either* of those values.  This will take into account
> short
> circuited evaluation.
>=20
> However, if you don't want your test to expose details of short circuited
> evaluation, you can set up two matchAndReturn calls for both keys.  I
> would
> recommend this option because you are stubbing the behaviour of the map
> and
> testing the behaviour of your object in response to what is in the map.=
=20
> The
> exact sequence of calls that your object makes to examine the map are not
> important; only what the map returns to your object and what your object
> does in response.
>=20
> E.g.  Using Or:
>=20
> String constantClass =3D constantName + ".class";
> String constantValue =3D constantName + ".value";
>=20
> mockMap.expectAndReturn( "containsKey",
>=20
> C.or(C.eq(constantClass),c.eq(constantValue)),
>                                              false );
>=20
> E.g. using matchAndReturn:
>=20
> mockMap.matchAndReturn( "containsKey", constantClass, false );
> mockMap.matchAndReturn( "containsKey", constantValue, false );
>=20
> Cheers,
>             Nat.
>=20
>=20
> P.S. I would recommend refactoring your if statement:
>=20
>     private boolean definesConstant( String name ) {
>         return getConstantsMap().containsKey( name );
>     }
>=20
>     ...
>=20
>         String constantClass =3D constantName + CLASS_SUFFIX;
>         String constantValue =3D constantName + VALUE_SUFFIX;
>=20
>         if ( !definesConstant(constantClass) ||
> !definesConstant(constantValue) ) {
>             ... blah blah blah ...
>         } else {
>             ... blah blah blah ...
>         }
>=20
> _______________________
> Dr. Nathaniel Pryce
> B13media Ltd.
> http://www.b13media.com
> +44 (0)7712 526 661
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Francois Beausoleil" <fb...@us...>
> To: <moc...@li...>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 6:14 AM
> Subject: [MO-java-dev] How to test double conditional implementation,
> which
> could change...
>=20
>=20
> Hi !
>=20
> I have a test which tests for the presence of two keys in a Map.  If one
> or both keys are missing, do A, else B.  So, here's what the code looks
> like at the moment:
> if (false =3D=3D getConstantsMap().containsKey(constantName + CLASS_SUFFI=
X)
>         || false =3D=3D getConstantsMap().containsKey(constantName +
>         VALUE_SUFFIX)) {
>=20
> No, Java is able to short-circuit the evaluation of a condition if the
> truth of a condition can be determined early.  Right now, I am setting up
> my dynamock so:
> final Mock mockMap =3D new Mock(Map.class);
> mockMap.expectAndReturn("containsKey",
>         C.eq(constantName + ".class"),
>         false);
> mockMap.expectAndReturn("containsKey",
>         C.eq(constantName + ".value"),
>         true);
> mockMap.expect("put",
>         C.args(
>                 C.eq(constantName + ".class"),
>                 C.eq(Integer.TYPE)
>         )
> );
>=20
> My test fails because Java short circuits the evaluation of the second
> condition.  I changed to using a matchAndReturn for the second
> containsKey, but this is an implementation detail.
>=20
> What would you guys recommend ?  Should I use matchAndReturn for both
> containsKey() setups, or should I change the implementation to use temp
> variables and then test these ?
>=20
> Thanks,
> Fran=E7ois
> --
>   Francois Beausoleil
>   Developer of Java Gui Builder
>   http://jgb.sourceforge.net/
>=20
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU
> Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner.
> Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission!
> INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php
> _______________________________________________
> Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
> Moc...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev
>=20
>=20
--
  Francois Beausoleil
  Developer of Java Gui Builder
  http://jgb.sourceforge.net/

RE: [MO-java-dev] How to test double conditional implementation, which could change...

[Dan C. <da...@dy...>]

Why not run a few tests. One in which the both Booleans are false, one
in which both Booleans are true and one in which the first is false and
the second is true?

-----Original Message-----
From: moc...@li...
[mailto:moc...@li...] On Behalf Of
Francois Beausoleil
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 10:14 PM
To: moc...@li...
Subject: [MO-java-dev] How to test double conditional implementation,
which could change...

Hi !

I have a test which tests for the presence of two keys in a Map.  If one
or both keys are missing, do A, else B.  So, here's what the code looks
like at the moment:
if (false =3D=3D getConstantsMap().containsKey(constantName + =
CLASS_SUFFIX)
        || false =3D=3D getConstantsMap().containsKey(constantName +
        VALUE_SUFFIX)) {

No, Java is able to short-circuit the evaluation of a condition if the
truth of a condition can be determined early.  Right now, I am setting
up
my dynamock so:
final Mock mockMap =3D new Mock(Map.class);
mockMap.expectAndReturn("containsKey",
        C.eq(constantName + ".class"),
        false);
mockMap.expectAndReturn("containsKey",
        C.eq(constantName + ".value"),
        true);
mockMap.expect("put",
        C.args(
                C.eq(constantName + ".class"),
                C.eq(Integer.TYPE)
        )
);

My test fails because Java short circuits the evaluation of the second
condition.  I changed to using a matchAndReturn for the second
containsKey, but this is an implementation detail.

What would you guys recommend ?  Should I use matchAndReturn for both
containsKey() setups, or should I change the implementation to use temp
variables and then test these ?

Thanks,
Fran=E7ois
--
  Francois Beausoleil
  Developer of Java Gui Builder
  http://jgb.sourceforge.net/


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU
Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner.
Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission!
INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php
_______________________________________________
Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list
Moc...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev