I am all for using mockito. I have found it very handy in writing good unit tests. Our codebase needs little changes to be able to unit test our codebase.
Writing a "real" unit test for the java client would be a good use case to see what all changes need to happen on the client. thanks mahadev On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Patrick Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been thinking that we need better testing for the client code. In > particular it's currently difficult to simulate all the different > types of failures a client might see. I'm wondering how we might do > this - two ideas come to mind; 1) aspectj and 2) mocks (mockito). > Anyone have other suggestions? > > I've used 1 before on an ad-hoc basis to find issues in the server > quorum code (aspects which would randomly cause a connect, bind, > write, read, etc.... to fail). 2 seems better from a deterministic > basis (ie repeatable tests that are easier to verify pass/fail). The > only issue I see with 2 (other than refactoring some of the client > code) is the need to mock networking level code. Perhaps both > approaches could be applied together or separately. > > Thoughts? > > Patrick >
