2009/4/27 Aidan Skinner <ai...@apache.org>: > There are quite a few MockFoo and TestableFoo classes in the various > unit tests which extend or re-implement certain core objects like > AMQProtocolSession and MessageStore. There's also a number of > used-by-tests-only constructors kicking about. > > I know some people feel quite strongly about Mocks (and their tendency > to grow limbs), and some of the TestableFoos we have are a pain to > maintain. One option might be to define a generic class which exposed > all the protected members of the class it's passed as public, and then > things which need to add test constructors can do that there. This > would reduce the maintainence necessary for new things. We could > convert old ones as we found ourselves in there, much like we did with > QpidTestCase. > > I'm not sure if that approach solves all of the use cases for the > existing Mock things, but it certainly would solve some of them. > > How much use do other people think this would be, and (I guess > slightly more pertinently) would it be worth the effort? > > - Aidan > -- > Apache Qpid - Give me convenience or give me death > http://qpid.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Any sort of improvement to our testing to ensure that we are testing our code not our Mock objects is a win for me. Having a common base class for the Java broker tests like we do with QpidTestCase in systests would be a good change. Martin -- Martin Ritchie --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
