Why I dislike mocks: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 02:34, 1 October 2007

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:

            LOG.debug("Received Message " + responseMessage.getJMSCorrelationID());

The reported failure:

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)

The fix:

expect(sendMessage.getJMSCorrelationID()).andReturn("JMS1").anyTimes();

Sorting out problems like this seems to be a complete waste of time. My preference would be to use a stub or a fake object.

Revision as of 05:25, 12 March 2007 (view source) Brianegge (talk \| contribs) No edit summary		Latest revision as of 02:34, 1 October 2007 (view source) Egge (talk \| contribs) mNo edit summary
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]]