> Just curious. Are you a "mock/interaction UTer" or a > "state check UTer"? (Fowler talks about these two at > http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html) > > I've been shifting from state-based testing to interaction > testing lately. Could it be that interaction based UTing > makes it easier to conform to your rules? I'm leaning > toward that conclusion.
I tend more toward state checking. I've sat with a number of people who do interaction style testing and often the designs go too Demeter-ish for my tastes. But that said, it's something I feel I have to do more of to appreciate. I'm good friends with some of the people who were on the team that triggered the mock objects paper and every time I see them I talk about how I don't see it yet.
With regard to the rules, I think they really push stubs at the system boundaries but allow objects to use other objects internally. I guess I'm a state based tester if I say that I use stubs (mocks) only as a concrete response to pain.
Flat View: This topic has 50 replies
on 51 pages
[
«
|
353637383940414243
|
»
]