Egge at 02:34, 1 October 2007

2007-10-01T02:34:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:34, 1 October 2007
Line 24:		Line 24:

	Sorting out problems like this seems to be a complete waste of time. My preference would be to use a [http://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/TestDouble.html stub or a fake object].		Sorting out problems like this seems to be a complete waste of time. My preference would be to use a [http://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/TestDouble.html stub or a fake object].

			[[Category:Java]]

Brianegge at 05:25, 12 March 2007

2007-03-12T05:25:13Z

New page

Mock's are brittle and force your tests to assume an implementation of the code you are testing. Today, the unit test broke because I added this line of code:
<pre>
LOG.debug("Received Message " + responseMessage.getJMSCorrelationID());
</pre>

The reported failure:
<pre>
Testcase: testRequestSendsMessageAndWaitsForResponse(JmsServiceImplUnitTest): Caused an ERROR

Unexpected method call getJMSCorrelationID():
java.lang.AssertionError:
Unexpected method call getJMSCorrelationID():
at org.easymock.internal.MockInvocationHandler.invoke(MockInvocationHandler.java:29)
at org.easymock.internal.ObjectMethodsFilter.invoke(ObjectMethodsFilter.java:45)
at $Proxy13.getJMSCorrelationID(Unknown Source)
at JmsServiceImpl.makeRequest(JmsServiceImpl.java:48)
at JmsServiceImplUnitTest.testRequestSendsMessageAndWaitsForResponse(JmsServiceImplUnitTest.java:56)
</pre>

The fix:
<pre>
expect(sendMessage.getJMSCorrelationID()).andReturn("JMS1").anyTimes();
</pre>

Sorting out problems like this seems to be a complete waste of time. My preference would be to use a [http://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/TestDouble.html stub or a fake object].

Why I dislike mocks - Revision history

Egge at 02:34, 1 October 2007

Brianegge at 05:25, 12 March 2007