Comments on Mock Objects: Talk at London Geek Night.

Nothing planned, but it does happen. Of course, yo...

2008-06-03T16:09:00.000+01:00

Nothing planned, but it does happen. Of course, you could always set something up and invite us :)

Sorry I missed it, are you planning on doing more ...

2008-06-03T15:51:00.000+01:00

Sorry I missed it, are you planning on doing more of these sorts of sessions in the future?

Glad you enjoyed it.

There isn't really a ...

2008-05-30T19:47:00.000+01:00

Glad you enjoyed it.

There isn't really a conflict, but there's a lot of misunderstanding that we haven't done the best job of clearing up.

Thanks for the talk, I enjoyed it - I hadn't looke...

2008-05-30T19:17:00.000+01:00

Thanks for the talk, I enjoyed it - I hadn't looked at JMock for a long time and it does seem to have moved on a lot since then!

There was plenty that I could argue over, which is probably just my own ignorance and contrariness. But one thing I entirely agree with is that any conflict between "state-based" and "interaction-based" testing is rather specious.

In principle I'll happily use checks of both interactions and state (which to me means "logical" state rather than however an object happens to store things internally), in whatever combination seems most appropriate for each individual test.

And depending on the choices and trade-offs you make, it's perfectly possible to produce "test doubles" with facilities for supporting both types of test, which pretty much proves there's no fundamental conflict.

Comments on Mock Objects: Talk at London Geek Night.

Nothing planned, but it does happen. Of course, yo...

Sorry I missed it, are you planning on doing more ...

Glad you enjoyed it. There isn't really a ...

Thanks for the talk, I enjoyed it - I hadn't looke...

Glad you enjoyed it.

There isn't really a ...