You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@shiro.apache.org by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com> on 2010/10/16 16:09:37 UTC
Mockito rocks
Any thoughts about using it?
Regards,
Alan
Re: Mockito rocks
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
I'm definitely not against using Mockito - I'd like to try it myself,
I was just raising some potential concerns since you guys would be
able to address them based on experience (since I don't have any w/
Mockito).
Ultimately I think its most important to lower any barrier that might
exist to writing tests. If adding Mockito makes Alan (or anyone else)
more comfortable and willing to do that, that's a great thing IMO :)
> think we should fear of breaking the tests - fixing the tests should
> always be the highest priority but we should be bold about refactoring
> in order to improve the quality. Also, I don't agree that more tests
> is automatically good.
Well, I meant more than what we have now - not more for the sake of
having more. Focusing on things like code coverage and source code
analysis are a better approach to quality software than just 'more
tests'. I was inferring that I think we don't have as many tests as
we should and that if Mockito helps Alan or anyone else write more to
improve code coverage, then I'm all for that :)
So, to that end, I'm totally fine w/ adding in Mockito if that's what
the team wants. I just preferred to discuss it's pros/negatives
before adding it just because we could, as well as to get a little
education about it. Have at it :)
Les
Re: Mockito rocks
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
Uh huh, it becomes an ideological battle :) First of all, depending on
the project, I've used and still use JMock, EasyMock and Mockito all
the time. There's absolutely no point using more than one in any given
project - they all bring in similar feature set with a bit different
emphasis and ease-of-use. Mockito's syntax feels the most natural and
concise to me. I've never been a fan of EasyMock's explicit
record/replay. I also don't like strict verification because too often
it becomes a maintenance burden and it may inconspiciously lead you to
testing what the code is doing as opposed to what it should be doing
(the infamous antipattern "my code is testing my mocks").
To me, the winner is almost always the one that lets me write less
code and arguably Mockito helps with that. I can certainly live with
EasyMock since I don't have time to rewrite the tests myself but if
Alan wants to do that and has the time, I wouldn't object. I don't
think we should fear of breaking the tests - fixing the tests should
always be the highest priority but we should be bold about refactoring
in order to improve the quality. Also, I don't agree that more tests
is automatically good. Every line of code we write needs to be
maintained and just as with application/business code, there can be
good and bad test code as well (speaking from experience, I've seen it
all...). It's always useful to audit the codebase from time to time,
after all that's why they make new editions of books as well. So if
Alan is willing to do the work and from my experience it makes sense,
then the prize for you Les would merely be the effort required to
learn the new library - which could be a positive as well. However, if
you or anybody feels strongly about the issue, I'm fine with status
quo as well.
Kalle
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> I've personally never used Mockito before and don't have any issues
> with trying it out, but from what I've heard, it doesn't really reduce
> or simplify unit testing that much for 'real world' test cases.
>
> For example, Mockito claims that you don't have to 'train' your mocks
> up front like you do with EasyMock. But IIUC, you have to write a lot
> of verify statements at the end of the test if you want to have a
> decent/valid assertion of behavior. So the labor of the Mockito
> assert methods seems to me no different than the EasyMock expect
> methods: where the only difference being where do you want to do the
> work: at the beginning of the unit test or the end.
>
> In fact, you still have to stub Mockito mocks (like EasyMock) before
> you execute your method under test so it seems like there'd be _more_
> code w/ Mockito, i.e.
>
> EasyMock:
> stub behavior/return values (multiple calls):
> call your method under test
> verify(mock); //one call
> assert one or two things
>
> Mockito:
> stub behavior/return values (multiple calls):
> call your method under test
> assert a lot of things (multiple calls);
>
> Also, Mockito doesn't have any strict mocks - sometimes strict mocks
> are good things depending on your test case. A blanket statement that
> 'all mocks are nice' seems dangerous considering you can choose your
> flavor with EasyMock depending on what is appropriate for the test
> case. Also, look at the 'In Order' example here:
> http://code.google.com/p/mockito/wiki/MockitoVSEasyMock That seems
> less readable than the EasyMock version IMO (and points to the
> multiple assert statements that you have to write).
>
> Anyway, this is what I've gleamed from their website and what I've
> heard from one or two others, so I'd love to hear what you guys think
> about this given that you both have real world experience with it.
>
> Mockito API aside, one struggle for me here is that it seems 1) silly
> to re-write any existing test code because doing so could break test
> cases and that's really risky and 2) if EasyMock remains because of
> this, then we'd have two mock frameworks interspersed and that just
> seems like a maintenance pain.
>
> But then again, having more tests is a *great* thing, so if people
> feel more inclined to actually write more tests if they can use their
> preferred API, that's the best result IMO.
>
> I'd love to hear about your own experiences. At the end of the day,
> more testing is great, and we're an open source project that can have
> fun with this stuff, so I'm all for trying it out. I just don't know
> that we'd want to get rid of EasyMock.
>
> Best,
>
> Les
>
Re: Mockito rocks
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
I've personally never used Mockito before and don't have any issues
with trying it out, but from what I've heard, it doesn't really reduce
or simplify unit testing that much for 'real world' test cases.
For example, Mockito claims that you don't have to 'train' your mocks
up front like you do with EasyMock. But IIUC, you have to write a lot
of verify statements at the end of the test if you want to have a
decent/valid assertion of behavior. So the labor of the Mockito
assert methods seems to me no different than the EasyMock expect
methods: where the only difference being where do you want to do the
work: at the beginning of the unit test or the end.
In fact, you still have to stub Mockito mocks (like EasyMock) before
you execute your method under test so it seems like there'd be _more_
code w/ Mockito, i.e.
EasyMock:
stub behavior/return values (multiple calls):
call your method under test
verify(mock); //one call
assert one or two things
Mockito:
stub behavior/return values (multiple calls):
call your method under test
assert a lot of things (multiple calls);
Also, Mockito doesn't have any strict mocks - sometimes strict mocks
are good things depending on your test case. A blanket statement that
'all mocks are nice' seems dangerous considering you can choose your
flavor with EasyMock depending on what is appropriate for the test
case. Also, look at the 'In Order' example here:
http://code.google.com/p/mockito/wiki/MockitoVSEasyMock That seems
less readable than the EasyMock version IMO (and points to the
multiple assert statements that you have to write).
Anyway, this is what I've gleamed from their website and what I've
heard from one or two others, so I'd love to hear what you guys think
about this given that you both have real world experience with it.
Mockito API aside, one struggle for me here is that it seems 1) silly
to re-write any existing test code because doing so could break test
cases and that's really risky and 2) if EasyMock remains because of
this, then we'd have two mock frameworks interspersed and that just
seems like a maintenance pain.
But then again, having more tests is a *great* thing, so if people
feel more inclined to actually write more tests if they can use their
preferred API, that's the best result IMO.
I'd love to hear about your own experiences. At the end of the day,
more testing is great, and we're an open source project that can have
fun with this stuff, so I'm all for trying it out. I just don't know
that we'd want to get rid of EasyMock.
Best,
Les
Re: Mockito rocks
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
What do you think Les? See http://mockito.org/ if you haven't used it.
Kalle
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> Happy to help. Let's wait for a lazy consensus on this. I won't have time to work on it this weekend.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> On Oct 16, 2010, at 8:48 AM, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
>
>> But, Mockito tastes better. Been using it in other projects and the
>> syntax is way better than with "Easy" Mock. I doubt anybody would be
>> against switching if somebody is willing to make the effort (hint
>> hint...).
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>>> NM, I see we're using easy mock.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> On Oct 16, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>
>>>> Any thoughts about using it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: Mockito rocks
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Happy to help. Let's wait for a lazy consensus on this. I won't have time to work on it this weekend.
Regards,
Alan
On Oct 16, 2010, at 8:48 AM, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
> But, Mockito tastes better. Been using it in other projects and the
> syntax is way better than with "Easy" Mock. I doubt anybody would be
> against switching if somebody is willing to make the effort (hint
> hint...).
>
> Kalle
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>> NM, I see we're using easy mock.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>> On Oct 16, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>> Any thoughts about using it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alan
>>>
>>
>>
Re: Mockito rocks
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
But, Mockito tastes better. Been using it in other projects and the
syntax is way better than with "Easy" Mock. I doubt anybody would be
against switching if somebody is willing to make the effort (hint
hint...).
Kalle
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> NM, I see we're using easy mock.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> On Oct 16, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> Any thoughts about using it?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>
>
Re: Mockito rocks
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
NM, I see we're using easy mock.
Regards,
Alan
On Oct 16, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Any thoughts about using it?
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>