OK so yous didn't mock me (pun intended) for posting that so I must
have understood what I have been reading. Stubs did seem easier to
apply but an understanding of mocks wouldn't hurt. Thanks for
replying, I'll take your advice on board.

Actually, just for interest, came across something called Pex. It's
an MS thing but basically it autogenerates your unit tests for you
through paramaters and I quote....

"...adding parameters (to unit tests) we turn a closed unit test into
a universally quantified conditional axiom."

In English that means if you have three branches in a method then you
write one unit test and Pex works out the values necessary to visit
each branch. What I read suggested it should be used along side
regular test frameworks.

http://research.microsoft.com/projects/pex/

There is an article here if your wanting to know more...
http://research.microsoft.com/projects/pex/articles/pextutorial.pdf

I don't know, just sharing the research.



--- In glasgow_altdotnet_usersgroup@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Canal"
<dhtmlgod@...> wrote:
>
> I don't use any mocks anymore, instead I use stubs. In the tests
that are
> concerned with the interaction between the dependency and
method/system
> under test I will try and assert on the return. If this isn't
possible, say
> for a Save/UPdate call, I will then use the AssertWasCalled
extension
> method.
>
> I would use a Stub over a Mock in every given situation. So far
anyway. I
> have been down the road of using Strict Mocks, and it was a very
painful
> experience.
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Paul Cowan <dagda1@...> wrote:
>
> > I only really have experience of Rhino.Mocks.
> >
> > One of the problems of mocking is we have so many names for
similar things.
> >
> > Since the advent of Rhino.Mocks 3.5 and indeed the AAA syntax
over the
> > record and playback model, I very rarely if ever use mocks.
> >
> > I would want to use mocks if I want to test that a mocked method
is called.
> >
> > I use Stubs to control the input and output of data into the
system under
> > test.
> >
> > You can confusingly assert that stubs were called.
> >
> > IMO mocks lead to more brittle tests.
> >
> > This might help to clear it up.
> >
> > http://ayende.com/wiki/Rhino%20Mocks%20-%20Stubs.ashx
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > dagda1@...
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > To: glasgow_altdotnet_usersgroup@yahoogroups.com
> > From: derek.smyth@...
> > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:41:53 +0000
> > Subject: [glasgow_altdotnet_usersgroup] TDD, Mocks, Stubs, IoC,
DI, getting
> > it straight.
> >
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > May I ask, have I got this right....
> >
> > TDD is based on writing tests before you write your code. The test
> > initially fails and then the code is written to pass the tests.
> >
> > The code written might have dependencies to resources (external to
> > the application) and dependencies to other classes that haven't
been
> > written yet.
> >
> > To get around that for testing purposes mocks and stubs are
created.
> > Dependency injection is used to 'fill in the gaps' for the test
cases
> > for the missing dependencies of the class thats being tested.
> >
> > Doing it that way means when the proper 'dependent' classes are
> > developed you can add them in to the application very easily
without
> > effecting the test cases.
> >
> > Stubs are used in place of classes that haven't been developed yet
> > and which access external resources. They are normally used to
> > validate state. IsNameValid, etc...
> >
> > While Mocks are used to test behaviour of the class to ensure it
> > calls the correct methods of the 'soon to be developed' class
> > dependencies (of the class being tested).
> >
> > *phew*
> >
> > I'm still not completely sure of when you would create a stub and
> > when you would create a mock? Or whether it matters if you decide
to
> > develop one over the other. I read that mocks are behaviour based
and
> > stubs are state based, is that correct? Doesn't correct state
imply
> > correct behaviour? and vice versa. Would you need to test for
both,
> > is it just safer to do so?
> >
> > It's all theory at the moment and it's theory pulled from a
number of
> > sources. If anyone could tell me if I'm on the right track then
I'd
> > appreciate it.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Read amazing stories to your kids on Messenger Try it Now!
<http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/115454060/direct/01/>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> "Any fool can write code that a computer can understand. Good
programmers
> write code that humans can understand."
> -Martin Fowler et al, Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing
Code
>