RE: [Nmock-general] asynchronous testing

[Dean H. <dea...@Bo...>]

I would love to combine the two approaches.  On my current project, I am
doing the data access layer which should have no real multithreading
issues so I plan on using NMock and getting more familiar with the
differences between the two libraries.  I am not sure what NMock does
that mocklib doesn't do yet, but I intend to find out more about this.=20
Thanks,=20
dean

-----Original Message-----
From: nmo...@li...
[mailto:nmo...@li...] On Behalf Of Steve
Freeman
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 4:33 PM
To: <nmo...@li...>
<nmo...@li...>
Subject: Re: [Nmock-general] asynchronous testing

What I'm hearing from your comments is that mocklib is intended for=20
different purposes from nmock, which is why it works better in those=20
circumstances. Is there value to be gained from trying to merge the two=20
approaches?

S.

On 25 Apr 2005, at 15:08, Dean Hiller wrote:
> Actually, the test is independent of the implementation(which allows=20
> easier refactoring).  The implementation may fork a thread or not, and

> the test will still pass.  The reason for forking occurs in many=20
> systems for many different reasons(disk i/o, talking to a slow legacy=20
> system through a stack, etc. etc.).  On my current project, I am=20
> trying to write tests where I put a request to an api, and the=20
> implementation drops it in a thread pool to go to my mocktransport.  I

> am doing subsystem testing.  We do test first here, but we do=20
> subsystem testing and integration testing.  We found subsystem testing

> gets more bang for the buck.  It also results in very well defined=20
> apis for the subsystems.  Lastly, it made refactoring of subsystems=20
> much easier without rewriting tests.  Of course, this is just my=20
> personal experience.   Some subsystems started out as just 3 classes,=20
> and others grew into 10,000 lines of code(but the api is still pretty=20
> small from the top(Low surface to volume ratio pattern).
> 	One other thing I liked about mocklib was I didn't have to learn

> about isAnything(), isEquals()...instead, it returns the parameters to

> you and you can do what you like with them.  Ie. I can do=20
> assertEquals(expected, param1) and assertSame(expected, param2)=20
> without learning more methods to use.  That would be kind of nice to=20
> have.
> Thanks,
> dean



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tell us your software development plans!
Take this survey and enter to win a one-year sub to SourceForge.net
Plus IDC's 2005 look-ahead and a copy of this survey
Click here to start!  http://www.idcswdc.com/cgi-bin/survey?id=3D105hix
_______________________________________________
Nmock-general mailing list
Nmo...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nmock-general

--------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments hereto are =
for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, =
privileged and nondisclosable information. If the recipient of this =
e-mail is not the addressee, or a person responsible for delivering this =
e-mail to the addressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from =
reading, printing, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this =
e-mail or any attachments hereto in any way. If the recipient has =
received this e-mail in error, please send return e-mail immediately =
notifying us of your receipt of this e-mail and delete the e-mail from =
your inbox. Thank you.