Well consider the situation where the programmer doesn't actually have their own instance of UniObjects at all, and is only trying to test some external unit.
-----Original Message----- From: Bill Haskett <wphask...@advantos.net> To: U2 Mail List <U2-users@listserver.u2ug.org> Sent: Mon, Aug 13, 2012 6:25 pm Subject: [U2] Fwd: Re: Mocking UniSession in .NET G-Man: "Despite the latest craze around unit testing and the entire industry that it's spawned, I still find applications I use to be as crappy as they've always been, so I'm not as enamored with unit tests or mocking as many others. " ...maybe even more so! :-) You'd think developers these days would have something better to do with their time, but then, you've got to do what you've got to do. :-) [sigh...] Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [U2] Mocking UniSession in .NET Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:28:32 -0700 From: Tony Gravagno <3xk547...@sneakemail.com> Reply-To: U2 Users List <u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org> To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > Brian Leach > would it be better to construct a higher level wrapper for your business > functions and mock those? the UO libraries are quite low level: its a bit > like mocking ado.net rather than your db calls. > From: Ravindranath > Thanks for the reply. I am trying to do higher level wrappers to hide > those UniObject stuff but the problem is in order to to get UniDynArray it > has to have UniSession. [snip] Brian, I was going to suggest the same thing. But this is one of the differences between unit testing an application and mocking, which will allow a unit test to run completely in test mode without actually calling to the server within the application code. Ravi could abstract his code out for the test but that very process could be considered an invalidation of the test. Despite the latest craze around unit testing and the entire industry that it's spawned, I still find applications I use to be as crappy as they've always been, so I'm not as enamored with unit tests or mocking as many others. When working on a GUI project I try to get the BASIC app developers to handle everything there while I intentionally remain ignorant of their inner processes. Once my clients get the hang of this they really enjoy the process - the BASIC developers regain their sense of self-confidence as they realize that a GUI doesn't threaten their jobs. We interface through well-defined BASIC calls. It's here that we can do a BASIC mockup of the input to their BASIC code. If that works, and I've done my job, the GUI will work when linked to the back-end. Similarly, and (Zzz...) here's the point, my GUI-side tests don't connect into the DBMS, so I don't need to mock that part. I keep that interface lightweight, use the same component for almost all DBMS activity, and don't need the overhead of unit tests or mocking for every new application. Ravi, that might be of some help to you. Good luck, T _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
