On Jul 17, 2010, at 9:29, Matt Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: > I think this is a problem elsewhere in our tests that we overly stub simple > objects for very little benefit. Sometimes there's just as many lines of > code for stubbing and expecting things as there would be for just setting up > the object and asserting what the object actually looked like at the end > instead of what methods were called on it.
Yep, I acquired that habit from someone else's recommendation and it took a while to see the folly of my ways. My recent code has always removed stubs and mocks of internal classes in favor of real objects wherever possible, but as with much of puppet, there's a lot of legacy to deal with. -- Luke Kanies | +1-615-594-8199 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
