20 messages in org.apache.incubator.adffaces-devRe: Thoughts about unit testing and m...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| John Fallows | May 10, 2006 5:23 pm | |
| Adam Winer | May 10, 2006 5:43 pm | |
| Dennis Byrne | May 10, 2006 6:29 pm | |
| Adam Winer | May 10, 2006 9:44 pm | |
| Craig McClanahan | May 10, 2006 10:09 pm | |
| John Fallows | May 12, 2006 9:08 pm | |
| Craig McClanahan | May 12, 2006 9:15 pm | |
| John Fallows | May 12, 2006 9:16 pm | |
| Craig McClanahan | May 12, 2006 9:24 pm | |
| John Fallows | May 12, 2006 10:12 pm | |
| Craig McClanahan | May 12, 2006 10:32 pm | |
| John Fallows | May 12, 2006 11:43 pm | |
| Adam Winer | May 13, 2006 9:08 am | |
| Martin Marinschek | May 13, 2006 2:46 pm | |
| John Fallows | May 13, 2006 3:44 pm | |
| Craig McClanahan | May 13, 2006 4:49 pm | |
| John Fallows | May 14, 2006 11:14 am | |
| Adam Winer | May 14, 2006 12:35 pm | |
| John Fallows | May 14, 2006 9:47 pm | |
| Matthias Wessendorf | Jun 19, 2006 3:31 pm |
| Subject: | Re: Thoughts about unit testing and mock objects | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | John Fallows (john...@gmail.com) | |
| Date: | May 12, 2006 10:12:15 pm | |
| List: | org.apache.incubator.adffaces-dev | |
On 5/12/06, Craig McClanahan <crai...@apache.org> wrote:
On 5/12/06, John Fallows <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/06, Adam Winer <awi...@gmail.com> wrote:
JMock does look interesting, but a couple of basic questions: - Is it available in a maven repository?
Yes. http://www.ibiblio.org/maven2/jmock/
- Is its license compatible?
On the surface, it would appear so, but IANAL and never played one on TV.
I had to read that several times to figure it out - does IANAL mean "I Am Not A Laywer" ? :-)
The way to get a definitive answer is to submit this to the
lega...@apache.org mailing list where license-savvy folks are hanging out. I'll forward them a query.
Thanks, that'll be useful to know.
CGLib is under Apache2 license and jMock is under the following license
http://jmock.codehaus.org/license.html
... and one more general one. The thing that drives me up the
wall with the current mock codebase in the ADF Faces tests is that it forces you to say "I expect method foo() to be called at least N times", even though with JSF there's rarely any such assurances whether a method will be called or not, and if so how many times. E.g., how often is
FacesContext.getViewRoot
()
called? Once? Twice? 20 times?
As the test writer you have the flexibility to either specify the number of calls precisely or not, depending on whether or not it is important to the test.
I think Adam's point was that the number of calls might be indeterminate if different implementations of JSF do things differently. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to use a library that *forced* me to specify call counts, even when I didn't care, either :-).
Yep. Sorry if I wasn't clear, jMock doesn't force you to specify call counts.
tc, -john.
-- http://apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10044 Author: Pro JSF and Ajax: Building Rich Internet Components, Apress