NorbertHartl wrote > I see no reason if there is a small kernel why it cannot load additional > stuff just for testing.
+1. Why would /any/ test framework (including SUnit) be included in the kernel?! And a big +1 to adding mocks to the default test framework, in whatever layer that gets loaded. Philosophical discussions about mocks aside, the programming world (full disclosure: including myself) has embraced them, and their absence seems unnecessarily restrictive and isolationist. While the bits of a BDD behavioral specification might not be any different from the average unit test, I've found the mindset they create is invaluable to keeping the focus on "what should this object do" instead of "does it work" (which comes along for free). I'd say we could use any possible help toward that paradigm shift. Some (many? most?) of our kernel tests seem brittle, duplicative, and, worst of all, of little use as documentation. p.s. although I don't have a ton of experience with Mocketry, when I shopped around for a mock framework, I remember strongly preferring BabyMock (which I hacked together with Phexample into BabyPhexample; so you get stacked tests, "should" expectations, and mocks). Maybe in another thread, Denis might explain why one might prefer Mocketry? ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Mocks-are-missing-in-Pharo-from-thread-OSProcess-is-missing-tp4920574p4920876.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
