Github user pnowojski commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4533#discussion_r145980535
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/io/network/netty/PartitionRequestClientHandlerTest.java
---
@@ -208,6 +211,53 @@ public void testCancelBeforeActive() throws Exception {
client.cancelRequestFor(inputChannel.getInputChannelId());
}
+ /**
+ * Verifies that {@link RemoteInputChannel} is enqueued in the
pipeline, and
+ * {@link AddCredit} message is sent to the producer.
+ */
+ @Test
+ public void testNotifyCreditAvailable() throws Exception {
+ final CreditBasedClientHandler handler = new
CreditBasedClientHandler();
+ final EmbeddedChannel channel = new EmbeddedChannel(handler);
+
+ final RemoteInputChannel inputChannel =
mock(RemoteInputChannel.class);
--- End diff --
I know that mocking was extensively used so far, but we had quite bad
experience with it.
I don't agree that it is not interacting, because it is for example
checking `inputChannel.isReleased()`, which you need to mock one test below.
Now imagine that during some refactor/implementing new feature someone modifies
handlers code, by adding some additional interaction/sanity check on
`inputChannel`. With mocks it will lead with thousands of changes in all of the
mocked unit tests.
---
