wow, great feedback guys :) vmassol: I'll read up on mocks tonight, I really need to learn more about them before I talk about them at any lvl beyond what i have...if I am going to try and build something out it ought to be useful :P Hopefully you and I can chat a bit this week about all this once I am more up to speed on mocking..
jesse On 2/18/06, Vincent Massol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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] > > -- jesse mcconnell jesseDOTmcconnellATgmailDOTcom
