Mocking framework vs functional testing, why bother mocking? -

-

i understand mocking frameworks can override behavior of objects. makes test easier , faster. simulating objects behaviors in production environment can good. question arises mocking not developer ? @ end functional test (which real world test) show passed or failed. why prolong envitable ? why bother mocking object find out not working in production. why wait functional tester find out codes not working. if did not mock instead used real test find bugs right away instead of pleasing ourselves mocking. argument presented me , might philosphical thoughts on mocking framework vs real world unit testing

good question. after decade writing automated developer tests (and creating mocking library needs), can come conclusion unit tests use mocking not best way go.

instead, writing acceptance-level integration tests has worked better me. use mocking when there no easy way around it.

i suspect there still going take several years before developers share view, though. today, creating (and running) "real-world" integration tests harder mocking dependencies away, due lack of tooling support such tests; often, it's easier "cheat" , create bunch of unit tests mocking, rather take trouble of creating real tests exercise code in more realistic way.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

java - Custom OutputStreamAppender not run: LOGBACK: No context given for <MYAPPENDER> -

-
i wish write custom appender on basis of outputstreamappender . wrote following class package tests; import java.io.ioexception; import java.io.outputstream; import ch.qos.logback.core.outputstreamappender; public class myappender<e> extends outputstreamappender<e> { public myappender() { system.out.println("myappender created"); setoutputstream(new outputstream() { @override public void write(int b) throws ioexception { throw new unsupportedoperationexception(); } }); } } then wrote following runner: package tests; import org.slf4j.loggerfactory; import ch.qos.logback.classic.logger; public class runner { private static final logger log = (logger) loggerfactory.getlogger(runner.class); public static void main(string[] args) { //log.addappender(new myappender<iloggingevent>()); log.info("hello world"); } } finall...
Read more

java - UML - How would you draw a try catch in a sequence diagram? -

-
Image
is there standard way of drawing try catch sequence diagrams? i've made attempt based on this feel end result doesn't feel right. code diagram based around: public static void save () { try { filehandle filehandle = gdx.files.external(file); filehandle.writestring(boolean.tostring(constantshandler.soundenabled)+"\n", false); (int = 0; < 5; i++) { filehandle.writestring(integer.tostring(constantshandler.highscores[i])+"\n", true); } } catch (throwable e) { } } my attempt note: know still need add loop. that's ok. fragments meant show conditional control flow in sequence diagram. superstructures puts limitations on use of fragments (see pp. 467 of ss2.1.1). should use critical region try part above. , option catch . however, keep telling can take quite freedom in using uml. it's language , such changes in life time. long reader ge...
Read more

c++ - No viable overloaded operator for references a map -

-
i trying use map can make tag names reference number. when try , use it, in code error (6 in total every time reference map): src/main.cpp:25:45: error: no viable overloaded operator[] type 'std::map<std::string, std::string>' const char* idcs = node.child_value(tagmap[3]); this code: #include "pugi/pugixml.hpp" #include <iostream> #include <string> #include <map> int main() { pugi::xml_document doca, docb; std::map<std::string, pugi::xml_node> mapa, mapb; std::map<std::string, std::string> tagmap {{"1", "data"}, {"2", "entry"}, {"3", "id"}, {"4", "content"}}; if (!doca.load_file("a.xml") || !docb.load_file("b.xml")) { std::cout << "can't find input files"; return 1; } (auto& node: doca.child(tagmap[1]).children(tagmap[2])) { co...
Read more