So where should one place a test that intends on exercising code against something real? We have bits here that involve http calls that pre-date soap and we therefore have no mock.
A repeat of the second question from my original post: does the integrate test execute against the artefact produced or against the original source code? On 13 November 2013 15:59, Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com > wrote: > On 13 November 2013 15:20, James Green <james.mk.gr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I love the FAQ entry that states that it is intended for running > > integration tests. > > > > The next entry should read: What do you call an integration test? > > > > Any test that takes more than 1 second to run is *not* a unit test. > > Most tests that take more than 50ms to run are *not* unit tests... but > there can be some exceptions > > If a unit test needs to call out to other systems, it will typically use a > mock. > > If your test is actually calling out to other systems (which could be code > from a dependency, etc - i.e. not just a TCP socket, could be a call within > JVM) then it is testing the integration of those two parts... therefore it > is not a unit test. > > There is no hard and fast rule as to where the transition occurs... but we > know that tests who's execution time is greater than 1 second are not unit > tests... and hence are integration tests... > > HTH > > > > > I've asked around and no-one comes up with a consistent answer. I guess > it > > depends on what is executing the integration test. In this case maven is > > invoking someone after the packaging phase so should I expect to run > tests > > against the packaged binary artefact? Is that the purpose here? > > > > Thanks, > > > > James > > >
