[TIP] ANN: Fudge 1.0 - YAMF (yet another mock framework)
kumar.mcmillan at gmail.com
Fri Feb 25 14:58:36 PST 2011
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!
>> 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 , 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.
>>  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.
>> testing-in-python mailing list
>> testing-in-python at lists.idyll.org
More information about the testing-in-python