Re: mock overhaul
Matthias, Could you say a little more about what sort of intelligence you need in the mocks? For more intelligent mocks, I usually subclass the base test ones (e.g., the MExternalContext class over in the renderkit test package). I'm happy with using jmock for objects like listeners, converters, validators, where we're trying to test if our components are correctly calling these objects. -- Adam On 7/4/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey devs, today I committed some stuff I did on the mock overhaul bransch. These things work out of the box with shale-test 1.0.2; (still some clean ups needed) Now, I *must* uses 1.0.3-SNAPSHOT (only on my box), b/c of a fixed bug in shale. However, I am also at that stage, where I need more *inteligent* mocks that only dummy objects. I'd like to introduce jmock also for stuff like converters and validators. What do you think? Happy independenc day :) (damn that Italy brought down my feelings...) -Matthias
Re: mock overhaul
Well, what I meant was that with JMock I can do stuff like mock.expects(atLeastOnce()).method(m).with(...) .will( onConsecutiveCalls( returnValue(10), returnValue(20), throwException(new IOException(end of stream)) ) ); Instead of writing/programming to much logic into the mocks. -Matthias On 7/5/06, Adam Winer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthias, Could you say a little more about what sort of intelligence you need in the mocks? For more intelligent mocks, I usually subclass the base test ones (e.g., the MExternalContext class over in the renderkit test package). I'm happy with using jmock for objects like listeners, converters, validators, where we're trying to test if our components are correctly calling these objects. -- Adam On 7/4/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey devs, today I committed some stuff I did on the mock overhaul bransch. These things work out of the box with shale-test 1.0.2; (still some clean ups needed) Now, I *must* uses 1.0.3-SNAPSHOT (only on my box), b/c of a fixed bug in shale. However, I am also at that stage, where I need more *inteligent* mocks that only dummy objects. I'd like to introduce jmock also for stuff like converters and validators. What do you think? Happy independenc day :) (damn that Italy brought down my feelings...) -Matthias -- Matthias Wessendorf Aechterhoek 18 48282 Emsdetten blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: mock overhaul
Sure, looks good to me. Which objects were you thinking we should JMock, and which should we use Shale Test or extensions of Shale Test? -- Adam On 7/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, what I meant was that with JMock I can do stuff like mock.expects(atLeastOnce()).method(m).with(...) .will( onConsecutiveCalls( returnValue(10), returnValue(20), throwException(new IOException(end of stream)) ) ); Instead of writing/programming to much logic into the mocks. -Matthias On 7/5/06, Adam Winer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthias, Could you say a little more about what sort of intelligence you need in the mocks? For more intelligent mocks, I usually subclass the base test ones (e.g., the MExternalContext class over in the renderkit test package). I'm happy with using jmock for objects like listeners, converters, validators, where we're trying to test if our components are correctly calling these objects. -- Adam On 7/4/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey devs, today I committed some stuff I did on the mock overhaul bransch. These things work out of the box with shale-test 1.0.2; (still some clean ups needed) Now, I *must* uses 1.0.3-SNAPSHOT (only on my box), b/c of a fixed bug in shale. However, I am also at that stage, where I need more *inteligent* mocks that only dummy objects. I'd like to introduce jmock also for stuff like converters and validators. What do you think? Happy independenc day :) (damn that Italy brought down my feelings...) -Matthias -- Matthias Wessendorf Aechterhoek 18 48282 Emsdetten blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: mock overhaul
Shale doesn't contain MockValidator, MockRenderer and mockConverter for instance. I struggled with these guys yesterday (mostly with MockRenderer). I am now looking into JMock to get a better idea of it, but looks promissing ;) -Matthias On 7/5/06, Adam Winer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure, looks good to me. Which objects were you thinking we should JMock, and which should we use Shale Test or extensions of Shale Test? -- Adam On 7/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, what I meant was that with JMock I can do stuff like mock.expects(atLeastOnce()).method(m).with(...) .will( onConsecutiveCalls( returnValue(10), returnValue(20), throwException(new IOException(end of stream)) ) ); Instead of writing/programming to much logic into the mocks. -Matthias On 7/5/06, Adam Winer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthias, Could you say a little more about what sort of intelligence you need in the mocks? For more intelligent mocks, I usually subclass the base test ones (e.g., the MExternalContext class over in the renderkit test package). I'm happy with using jmock for objects like listeners, converters, validators, where we're trying to test if our components are correctly calling these objects. -- Adam On 7/4/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey devs, today I committed some stuff I did on the mock overhaul bransch. These things work out of the box with shale-test 1.0.2; (still some clean ups needed) Now, I *must* uses 1.0.3-SNAPSHOT (only on my box), b/c of a fixed bug in shale. However, I am also at that stage, where I need more *inteligent* mocks that only dummy objects. I'd like to introduce jmock also for stuff like converters and validators. What do you think? Happy independenc day :) (damn that Italy brought down my feelings...) -Matthias -- Matthias Wessendorf Aechterhoek 18 48282 Emsdetten blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com -- Matthias Wessendorf Aechterhoek 18 48282 Emsdetten blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: mock overhaul
I agree, for these JMock makes a lot of sense; these are objects where a Shale Test implementation (even if it existed) wouldn't be helpful. -- Adam On 7/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shale doesn't contain MockValidator, MockRenderer and mockConverter for instance. I struggled with these guys yesterday (mostly with MockRenderer). I am now looking into JMock to get a better idea of it, but looks promissing ;) -Matthias On 7/5/06, Adam Winer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure, looks good to me. Which objects were you thinking we should JMock, and which should we use Shale Test or extensions of Shale Test? -- Adam On 7/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, what I meant was that with JMock I can do stuff like mock.expects(atLeastOnce()).method(m).with(...) .will( onConsecutiveCalls( returnValue(10), returnValue(20), throwException(new IOException(end of stream)) ) ); Instead of writing/programming to much logic into the mocks. -Matthias On 7/5/06, Adam Winer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthias, Could you say a little more about what sort of intelligence you need in the mocks? For more intelligent mocks, I usually subclass the base test ones (e.g., the MExternalContext class over in the renderkit test package). I'm happy with using jmock for objects like listeners, converters, validators, where we're trying to test if our components are correctly calling these objects. -- Adam On 7/4/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey devs, today I committed some stuff I did on the mock overhaul bransch. These things work out of the box with shale-test 1.0.2; (still some clean ups needed) Now, I *must* uses 1.0.3-SNAPSHOT (only on my box), b/c of a fixed bug in shale. However, I am also at that stage, where I need more *inteligent* mocks that only dummy objects. I'd like to introduce jmock also for stuff like converters and validators. What do you think? Happy independenc day :) (damn that Italy brought down my feelings...) -Matthias -- Matthias Wessendorf Aechterhoek 18 48282 Emsdetten blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com -- Matthias Wessendorf Aechterhoek 18 48282 Emsdetten blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: mock overhaul
That was what I was thinking. In case of a MockConverter... well... this guy needs to much logic... IMHO Ok, than I go this route. Btw. classes MockFContext (our test clazz) can be removed, but not committed yet, because of some issue on my box... ;) -Matthias On 7/5/06, Adam Winer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree, for these JMock makes a lot of sense; these are objects where a Shale Test implementation (even if it existed) wouldn't be helpful. -- Adam On 7/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shale doesn't contain MockValidator, MockRenderer and mockConverter for instance. I struggled with these guys yesterday (mostly with MockRenderer). I am now looking into JMock to get a better idea of it, but looks promissing ;) -Matthias On 7/5/06, Adam Winer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure, looks good to me. Which objects were you thinking we should JMock, and which should we use Shale Test or extensions of Shale Test? -- Adam On 7/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, what I meant was that with JMock I can do stuff like mock.expects(atLeastOnce()).method(m).with(...) .will( onConsecutiveCalls( returnValue(10), returnValue(20), throwException(new IOException(end of stream)) ) ); Instead of writing/programming to much logic into the mocks. -Matthias On 7/5/06, Adam Winer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthias, Could you say a little more about what sort of intelligence you need in the mocks? For more intelligent mocks, I usually subclass the base test ones (e.g., the MExternalContext class over in the renderkit test package). I'm happy with using jmock for objects like listeners, converters, validators, where we're trying to test if our components are correctly calling these objects. -- Adam On 7/4/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey devs, today I committed some stuff I did on the mock overhaul bransch. These things work out of the box with shale-test 1.0.2; (still some clean ups needed) Now, I *must* uses 1.0.3-SNAPSHOT (only on my box), b/c of a fixed bug in shale. However, I am also at that stage, where I need more *inteligent* mocks that only dummy objects. I'd like to introduce jmock also for stuff like converters and validators. What do you think? Happy independenc day :) (damn that Italy brought down my feelings...) -Matthias -- Matthias Wessendorf Aechterhoek 18 48282 Emsdetten blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com -- Matthias Wessendorf Aechterhoek 18 48282 Emsdetten blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com -- Matthias Wessendorf Aechterhoek 18 48282 Emsdetten blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
