Hi Thomas!
Thomas Calivera wrote:
> "Yes and no. beginXxx() is necessary anyway to do the setup."
>
> If we are using strictly MO objects with proper methods setting initial
> state (perhaps in addition to the methods defined in the interface we are
> providing a mock implementation of, what is to prevent me from setting them
> up in testXXX()?
Nothing in fact. You're right.
> "If you only want to catch possible exceptions, you wouldn't need to do
> endXxx(); but if you wanted to check for bugs in the resulting HTML or
> something like that, living inside Cactus would be a big plus -- even better
> now that HttpUnit is willing to lend its powerful validating capacities."
>
> Agreed, but this is not unit testing. Also, (please feel free to say RTFM),
> but if I understand HttpUnit correctly, what it is really doing is sucking
> data off a stream and then validating whatever comes through. If so, why
> cannot a mock object stream the response written by the servlet to HttpUnit
> and return a reference to an HttpUnit object allowing you to perform
> validation still within testXXX(), but after the test subject has flushed
> and closed the response stream?
Again, nothing prevents you. It looks clearer if they are separated,
that's all :)
Un saludo,
Alex.
