[TIP] ANN: Fudge 1.0 - YAMF (yet another mock framework)

[Kumar McMillan]

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Gary Bernhardt
<gary.bernhardt at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to register my approval of this thing actually getting test
> double terminology right. We need more of that.

To be honest, I'm not a huge of fan of Martin Fowler's "strongly
typed" definition of test doubles.  It's like all that stuff was
thought up by a Java user or something :)

>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Kumar McMillan
> <kumar.mcmillan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Everyone else is doing it, right?!  Mock testing tools abound!
>> http://farmdev.com/thoughts/90/fudge-goes-1-0/
>> http://farmdev.com/projects/fudge/
>>
>> Fudge has come along way since its 0.9.0 release in late 2009.  As the
>> flexmock docs point out, one of its major flaws in 0.9 was that you
>> had to manage setup/teardown so that expectations got verified.  Since
>> 1.0 that is no longer the case.  The docs above explain how it works
>> but as a spoiler: I basically stole mock's @patch method.  I always
>> liked the way @patch worked but never thought it would add much value
>> to Fudge.  Then one day, while working on a mock based suite [1], it
>> dawned on me that this would be a perfect way to seamlessly inject
>> fudge's verification step.  Unlike flexmock it requires a decorator
>> but also unlike flexmock it doesn't couple you to your test runner.
>>
>> [1] Mock is by far the most pervasive mock testing tool.  People love
>> it so much that I often lose the vote when trying to introduce Fudge
>> into a new project :)  I like mock too but I really don't like
>> postmortem inspection and wanted more direct tracebacks.
>>
>> Kumar
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> testing-in-python mailing list
>> testing-in-python at lists.idyll.org
>> http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/testing-in-python
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Gary
> http://blog.extracheese.org
>