Shane,I think that a good guidance would be to tell anyone who doesn't
really care about the difference to just use stubs, and assert on the
results.
And then we can direct them to Single assert per test rule.
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Shane Courtrille
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> I was originally responding to Ayende.. then I realized my original
> response didn't clarify what I was saying No about.
>
> The difference for me is in interaction based testing.
>
> The only place I use a mock is when I need to verify behavior but the only
> way to do that is to verify that interaction occured with another class (aka
> Interaction based testing). For me the canonical example is a class calling
> a Repository (data access provider) to save something. In a unit test I
> don't want to call the live Repository since that would access the live
> database. BUT it's very important that I verify that the save occurs. In
> this instance I would create a SINGLE test that uses a mock to verify this
> one interaction.
>
> Now instead let's say I have a Foo that calls IBar for a piece of
> information and without that information the class blows up (the result
> can't be null for instance). Now this may be a case where I care about the
> interaction in which case again I create a SINGLE test that uses a mock.
> BUT for every other test I would use a Stub to provide the value that Foo
> requires to do it's job.
>
> This I believe is keeping inline with the single assertion principle (which
> I'm sure has a real name I'm forgetting). In my world I use a mock to
> create an assertion and a stub to provide information a class requires to do
> it's job.
>
> Hopefully that clears up my beliefs a little bit..?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Tim Barcz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Shane,
>>
>> Not following who you were replying to...can you clarify?
>>
>> Also, summarize your stance on Mocks vs. Stubs.
>>
>> I *can* assert interaction with a stub, see the test case that was
>> provided in the first post.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Shane Courtrille <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> This email should have said "No.. you are correct that there is not
>>> really that much of a difference"
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:42 AM, Shane Courtrille <
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No.. and that is the problem. The difference is very much a conceptual
>>>> thing so it's very important that it be protected. By allowing the
>>>> assertion of stub calls the usage of stub and mock is diluted.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you can help us understand why someone want to be able to assert
>>>> stub calls and your view on why this was a good feature to add? Isn't that
>>>> what a mock is for?
>>>>
>>>> Shane
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Because there isn't really much of a difference between the two, and I
>>>>> got feature request to be able to assert of stub calls.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Shane Courtrille <
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Which to me is the standard difference between the two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question is why does the interface for a stub have to support
>>>>>> operations which are the domain of a mock object? When a new comer
>>>>>> looks at
>>>>>> a Stub shouldn't they be able to tell the difference without having to
>>>>>> deal
>>>>>> with the mental baggage of "Hey wait.. a stub looks a lot like a mock to
>>>>>> me".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shane
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:15 AM, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The main thing is a concpetual difference.I would use stub if I
>>>>>>> don't care about what is going to happen
>>>>>>> I would use a mock if I do care.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Tim Barcz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am working on a presentation and was about to make the assertion,
>>>>>>>> "stubs can't have expectations set on them". I decide to double check
>>>>>>>> myself and run the following code and see that I can set expectations.
>>>>>>>> (Removing the call to logger.Log in the Order method causes the test to
>>>>>>>> fail).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [TestFixture]
>>>>>>>> public class Stubs
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> [Test]
>>>>>>>> public void CreateStub()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> var logger = MockRepository.GenerateStub<ILogger>();
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> var svc = new OrderService(logger);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> svc.Order();
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> logger.AssertWasCalled(x=>x.Log("hello"));
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> public class OrderService
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> private readonly ILogger logger;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> public OrderService(ILogger logger)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> this.logger = logger;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> public void Order()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> logger.Log("hello");
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> public interface ILogger
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> void Log(string message);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Rhino.Mocks" 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/RhinoMocks?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
