[TIP] Mock objects in testing object composition?
fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk
Fri May 18 10:55:35 PDT 2007
Jim Fulton wrote:
> On May 17, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Benji York wrote:
>> Kumar McMillan wrote:
>>> On 4/24/07, Julius Lucks <lucks at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>>> Many thanks Benji and Paul.
>>>> Looks like simpler is better. So when are mock objects useful?
>>> in my experience, mock objects are useful mostly for depending on
>>> kind of "external" resource.
>> Purists would probably call those "stubs" instead of "mocks", but I
>> what you're saying.
> Since this is a testing list, I think it would be helpful to be
> careful about jargon so as not to sow confusion. I think we should
> distinguish between stubs and mocks, providing the link to:
> when there is confusion, assuming of course, that Fowler is correct
> in his characterization. :)
I dislike the distinction he draws. Where you are creating simple
objects that pretend to be other classes for the purposes of testing, by
normal usage of English you *are* creating mock objects.
I think he has hijacked the term for something which is actually far
> Jim Fulton mailto:jim at zope.com Python Powered!
> CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org
> Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org
> testing-in-python mailing list
> testing-in-python at lists.idyll.org
More information about the testing-in-python