2011/11/23 Sandy Walsh <[email protected]>: > :) yeah, you're completely misunderstanding me.
Likewise! :) > So, you've made a much better StubOutWithMock() and slightly better > stubs.Set() by (essentially) ignoring the method parameter checks and just > focusing on the return type. No, no. Read my e-mail again. I don't want to do it that way either. I showed two examples of what I'd like to get rid of, followed by what I'd like to do instead. > Side note: > I don't view tests that permit > exercise_the_routine_that_will_eventually_do_an_instance_get() > calls to be unit tests ... they're integration tests and the source of all > this headache in the first place. I meant "eventually" as in "it'll probably do a bunch of other things, but also do an instance_get", not as in "some number of layers down, it'll do an instance_get". > A unit test should be > exercise_the_routine_that_will_directly_call_instance_get() > > Hopefully we're saying the same thing on this last point? Absolutely. -- Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/ Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/ OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
