On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Gustavo Niemeyer <gust...@niemeyer.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Mark Ramm-Christensen > (Canonical.com) <mark.ramm-christen...@canonical.com> wrote: > > I think the two issues ARE related because a bias against mocks, and a > > failure to separate out functional tests, in a large project leads to a > test > > suite that has lots of large slow tests, and which developers can't > easily > > run many, many, many times a day. > > There are test doubles in the code base of juju since pretty much the > start (dummy provider?). If you have large slow tests, this should be > fixed, but that's orthogonal to having these or not. > > Then, having a bias against test doubles everywhere is a good thing. > Ideally the implementation itself should be properly factored out so > that you don't need the doubles in the first place. Michael Foord > already described this in a better way. > Hmm, there seems to be some nuance missing here. I see the argument as originally made as saying "don't have doubles anywhere unless you absolutely have to for performance reasons or because a non-double is the only possible way to do a test." I disagree with that. I know there are good uses of doubles in the code, and bad ones. > If you want to have a rule "Tests are slow, you should X", the best X > is "think about what you are doing", rather than "use test doubles". > Agreed. I did not and would never argue otherwise. > By allowing explicit ways to write larger functional tests as well as > small > > (unitish) tests you get to let the two kinds of tests be what they need > to > > be, without trying to have one test suite serve both purposes. And the > > creation of a "place" for those larger tests was just as much a part of > the > > point of this thread, as Roger's comments on mocking. > > If by "functional test" you mean "test that is necessarily slow", > there should not be _a_ place for them, because you may want those in > multiple places in the code base, to test local logic that is > necessarily expensive. Roger covered that by suggesting a flag that is > run when you want to skip those. This is a common technique in other > projects, and tends to work well. > I agree with tagging. "A place" wasn't necessarily intended to be prescriptive. My point, which I feel has already been well enough made is that there needs to be a way to separate out long running tests. --Mark Ramm
-- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
