Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 22/ott/04, alle 19:40, Reinhard Poetz ha scritto:
Have you considered using Easymock? IMHO its usage is more intuitive
than jMock.
(see BlockDeployer test cases)
After perusing the documentation and samples, I decided that I liked
jMock more, but I didn't try EasyMock
Ugo Cei wrote:
In the coming days, I plan to rewrite all tests depending on
ExcaliburTestCase so that we can forget about it. Stay tuned.
In addition, our tests test if it is possible to get a corresponding
selector (e.g. for transformers etc.) and then the component to test
from this
Il giorno 25/ott/04, alle 08:58, Carsten Ziegeler ha scritto:
Ugo Cei wrote:
In the coming days, I plan to rewrite all tests depending on
ExcaliburTestCase so that we can forget about it. Stay tuned.
In addition, our tests test if it is possible to get a corresponding
selector (e.g. for
Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 25/ott/04, alle 08:58, Carsten Ziegeler ha scritto:
Ugo Cei wrote:
In the coming days, I plan to rewrite all tests depending on
ExcaliburTestCase so that we can forget about it. Stay tuned.
In addition, our tests test if it is possible to get a
Il giorno 25/ott/04, alle 08:17, Reinhard Poetz ha scritto:
Probably yes. IMO the advantages of Easymock are
- you directly call methods on the objects - so refactoring is
rather simple
because the TestMethods are updated too
Interesting. This merits some more consideration. I also don't
Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 25/ott/04, alle 08:17, Reinhard Poetz ha scritto:
Probably yes. IMO the advantages of Easymock are
- you directly call methods on the objects - so refactoring is
rather simple
because the TestMethods are updated too
Interesting. This merits some more consideration.
Il giorno 25/ott/04, alle 09:39, Reinhard Poetz ha scritto:
But sometimes there are cases when you have to mock an object and not
an interface and Easymock can build proxy objects of them too.
Not true. You can mock classes with jMock too:
http://jmock.org/cglib.html :-)
Ugo
--
Ugo Cei
Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 25/ott/04, alle 09:39, Reinhard Poetz ha scritto:
But sometimes there are cases when you have to mock an object and not
an interface and Easymock can build proxy objects of them too.
Not true. You can mock classes with jMock too:
http://jmock.org/cglib.html :-)
Ugo
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 25/ott/04, alle 09:54, Reinhard Poetz ha scritto:
Anyway, I don't think we have to decide on one mock framework. Whoever
writes the test decides, which one he prefers.
Yes, that's a possibility. I am just thinking that it might be less confusing
for
I wrote:
Currently, all the unit tests involving sitemap components fail because
the class org.apache.cocoon.components.ExtendedComponentSelector, which
is referenced by *.xtest files, has been removed.
Now, those tests depend on the deprecated ExcaliburTestcase class and it
would be nice to
Ugo Cei wrote:
I wrote:
Using the jMock library, the test looks like this (slightly edited to
simplify):
Have you considered using Easymock? IMHO its usage is more intuitive than jMock.
--
Reinhard
Ugo Cei wrote:
I wrote:
Using the jMock library, the test looks like this (slightly edited to
simplify):
Have you considered using Easymock? IMHO its usage is more intuitive than jMock.
(see BlockDeployer test cases)
--
Reinhard
Il giorno 22/ott/04, alle 19:40, Reinhard Poetz ha scritto:
Have you considered using Easymock? IMHO its usage is more intuitive
than jMock.
(see BlockDeployer test cases)
After perusing the documentation and samples, I decided that I liked
jMock more, but I didn't try EasyMock in practice. If
13 matches
Mail list logo
