Oh that's sweet. I didn't know version 2 was out now. I'll be using
that for my db calls now for sure.
-Sam
Kurt Wiersma wrote, On 12/21/2006 6:12 PM:
Robert Blackburn developer of cfUnit has a nice post about a mock
object testing setup he created.
http://rbdev.net/devblog/index.php?entry=entry061128-130441
<http://rbdev.net/devblog/index.php?entry=entry061128-130441>
--Kurt
On 12/21/06, *Jeff Chastain* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
There is always a need for both unit and integration testing, I
just don't
like mixing them. Part of test driven development as I understand
it is to
write the test for the object, then develop the object. How do
you do this
if you first have to write the dependent objects? There is a
reason for the
popularity of the mock and stub frameworks in other languages ...
it makes
testing more precise. Yes, you may never run into problems with a
dependent
object breaking the object you are testing, but I don't really see
that as a
reason to allow the possibility. If it did happen, you could have
a long
dependency chain, part of which you might not be able to test (the
event
object in Mach-II for example) and debugging would be as difficult
as it
would be without unit tests.
I have just seen a lot more posts recently about unit tests and
TDD, but I
have not seen any examples short of very simple objects with no
dependencies.
Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] On Behalf
Of Sammy Larbi
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:47 PM
To: cfcdev@cfczone.org <mailto:cfcdev@cfczone.org>
Subject: Re: [CFCDEV] TDD for ColdFusion
Jeff D. Chastain wrote, On 12/21/2006 4:00 PM:
> This is a cross-post with CF-Talk, but I figured this list is a bit
> more cfc oriented. I am really trying to get into test driven
> development as the benefits are fairly obvious after having done
> development any other way. However, in terms of doing this with
> ColdFusion, I am either not getting it or there is a lot of talk
going
> on regarding TDD, but not much in actual practice.
>
> My biggest issue comes with object dependencies. Ideally, your
> objects are as loosely coupled as possible, but it is simply not
> possible to have an application full of completely disjoint objects
> with no dependencies at all. One of the premises of unit testing
> though is to test only the functionality of one individual object or
> unit and not test all of its dependencies. Other languages
appear to
> handle this with mock objects which allow for simulating and
testing
> any object dependencies.
Of course, you could directly test those too.
> However, the mock object frameworks for Java and other languages
> simply don't port to ColdFusion because of language construct
> differences. Without a mock object framework, the only other
option I
> see is to hand create and maintain stub or mock objects, and
this just
> does not seem like a feasible practice in an application of any
size.
>
A while back, I thought of attempting to develop a mock object
framework for
CF (or better put, I thought about thinking about it). But, as I
explain
below, I haven't seen much use for one in my own development, so
I've pretty
much dropped the idea.
> So, how do you test ColdFusion objects when there are dependencies
> involved?
>
I haven't yet found myself in need of a "true" mock. In cases where
I'm testing class A which does have a dependency B, I go ahead and
create
the stubs in B as I need them, and let that class grow into the
real thing
over time, as needed. I don't think there's anything wrong with
integration
tests - in fact, we need those too. In the cases where I have
needed "unit"
tests (in the proper sense of the term), I might then go ahead and
hand
create class C, which is basically a "mock" that extends B. It's
not really
a mock (well, we had a huge discussion about this on the TDD list
a couple
of months ago), but it serves the purpose of basically truly
isolating A.
In any case, I don't find that need
happening often. Further, I haven't noticed that I've ever
gotten into
trouble when something in B breaks the tests for A - it's normally
pretty
obvious, even if it doesn't break the tests for B. In fact, I've
often had
more trouble with my fake "mocks" than with my integration tests. Of
course, this phenomenon is not unique to me in Coldfusion.
I've also experienced it in Java. Ron Jeffries talked about never
(or very
rarely) needing to use a "proper" mock as well.
Does that make any sense?
-Sam
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, please follow the
instructions
at http://www.cfczone.org/listserv.cfm
CFCDev is supported by:
Katapult Media, Inc.
We are cool code geeks looking for fun projects to rock!
www.katapultmedia.com <http://www.katapultmedia.com>
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/cfcdev@cfczone.org
<http://www.mail-archive.com/cfcdev@cfczone.org>
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, please follow the
instructions at http://www.cfczone.org/listserv.cfm
<http://www.cfczone.org/listserv.cfm>
CFCDev is supported by:
Katapult Media, Inc.
We are cool code geeks looking for fun projects to rock!
www.katapultmedia.com <http://www.katapultmedia.com>
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/cfcdev@cfczone.org
<http://www.mail-archive.com/cfcdev@cfczone.org>
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, please follow the
instructions at http://www.cfczone.org/listserv.cfm
CFCDev is supported by:
Katapult Media, Inc.
We are cool code geeks looking for fun projects to rock!
www.katapultmedia.com
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/cfcdev@cfczone.org
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, please follow the instructions at
http://www.cfczone.org/listserv.cfm
CFCDev is supported by:
Katapult Media, Inc.
We are cool code geeks looking for fun projects to rock!
www.katapultmedia.com
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/cfcdev@cfczone.org
