Hi Carlos,

Just wanted to say that I'm not against providing some stubs. I think this
is very useful. I guess the only thing I'm saying is that unit testing of
plugins is possible right now using mocks. If I find some time in the
future, I'll document it.

Thanks
-Vincent

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carlos
> Sanchez
> Sent: samedi 18 février 2006 21:32
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: plugin testing
> 
> On 2/18/06, Vincent Massol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Carlos
> > > Sanchez
> > > Sent: samedi 18 février 2006 20:14
> > > To: Maven Developers List
> > > Subject: Re: plugin testing
> > >
> > > I thought more about static mocks vs. dinamic mocks, i think this is
> > > what you call stubs vs. mocks.
> >
> > Not quite. There are 2 types of mocks: static and dynamic. They are
> > different from stubs. I could point you at JUnit in Action where I've
> tried
> > to explain the difference ;-) but here's another explanation:
> > http://martinfowler.com/bliki/TestDouble.html
> >
> 
> Thanks for the pointer. After reading it, what I'd like to have are stubs
> 
> 
> > > What I found is that while jmock is great for certain cases, like
> > > throwing an exception as you say, for other common tasks static mocks
> > > are easier and require less test code.
> >
> > I don't quite agree... :-)
> >
> > When this happens this is a code smell. As I said either you're mocking
> too
> > deep or your code has a design issue. Here's a very good article on the
> > topic of using mocks:
> > http://www.jmock.org/oopsla2004.pdf
> >
> 
> Creating a mock with jMock takes more lines than creating a Stub
> (castings, setting expectations,... vs. just "new X()"), that's why
> I'd like to have stubs for the common objects.
> 
> 
> > I do agree though that there are some very simple cases when you don't
> need
> > a mock at all. For example when you have a data object there's usually
> no
> > point in mocking it.
> 
> Sure
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to