On 04 Jul 10:07, Nicolas Évrard wrote: > * Cédric Krier [2014-06-23 18:37 +0200]: > >Hi, > > Hello, > > >For the review [1], I started to use a Mock object for testing because > >it was easier this way. I choose to use the backport of the Python3 > >unittest.mock [2] [3]. I think we should stick to this library if we > >need to do some mocking in the unittest. > > Yesterday I took some time[1] to use mocks on some code I have written > during the day. > > Here are some observation I made: > > - it's really interesting to test only the small part of the code > you've written. You can rely on the assumption that everything > is working as expected it brings the true meaning of unit in > unittest! > > - a lot of boilerplate code is needed to write a correct test
Then your code is not enough divided or you are not testing one thing so you should write a scenario. > - due to the amount of boilerplate code needed I am a bit afraid > that the test will be difficult to maintain > > - patching object is awesome but nesting patch in with statements > is a real indentation killer > > All in all it's a very nice tool to have in our box because it makes > test more 'unitary' but there is some little annoyances (but I might > have missed the obvious). -- Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL Email/Jabber: cedric.kr...@b2ck.com Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgpf3Xw4Se5dO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
