On Sat, 2014-12-06 at 01:22 +0000, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Friday, 5 December 2014 at 15:28:36 UTC, Chris wrote: > > > This is very true. Specially when mocks come into play, > > > sometimes test become duplicated code and every time you make > > > changes in your codebase you have to go and change the > > > expected behaviour of mocks, which is just tedious and useless.
Well poor use of mocks anyway. If a mock is having to change because the code changes (rather than the story changing) then the mock is wrong: inappropriate separation of concerns and use of mocks. > > Thanks for saying that. That's my experience too, especially > > when a module is under heavy development with frequent changes. > > I second this, too much mock is a lot of work down the road. I find mock immensely valuable for separating concerns, e.g GUI for controlling a network device. For integration testing mocks are invaluable, and they are useful for unit tests. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
