Skip to main content

Stop.Mocking.EVERYTHING

I've flip flopped on how to use mock objects since 2008. It's took me nearly five years to finally claim to have a solid, practical answer on what is in my opinion, their correct use.

Mock Everything

Some developers told me to mock everything. Every. Single. Collaborator. I wasn't sure about this approach.

  • My tests felt too brittle - tied to implementation details.
  • My tests felt like a duplication of my production code.
  • Your test count rises rapidly.
  • This style of testing will slow you down - more to write/execute/debug.

Mock Nothing

Some developers told me to mock nothing. Sometimes I never used mocks. I wasn't sure about this approach either.

  • My tests felt too loose - it was easy to introduce bugs or defects.
  • My production code suffered as I introduced accessors only for testing.

No wonder I was confused. Neither approach seemed to be comfortable with me.

Solution

  • Use mocks for commands
  • Use stubs for queries

This halfway house is built around the idea of command and query separation as detailed by Mark Seeman. This simple principle makes a lot of sense, and finally helped me realise how best to use stubs and mocks.

  • Any commands (methods that have no return type) should have a mock object verifying their use if they are architecturally significant.
  • Any queries (methods that have return types) should have a stub object that is returned if their use is architecturally significant.

If the collaborator is not significant, or in other words is simply an implementation detail then no mock or stub is needed. That's right, just new up (or instantiate) your dependency there and then. This allows you to refactor the internals aggressively, without the fear of breaking or rewriting tests.

This approach has served me well for a while now, and in fact can be achieved even without the need to use a complicated mocking framework, though that will be the subject of a future post.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Constant Object Anti Pattern

Most constants are used to remove magic numbers or variables that lack context. A classic example would be code littered with the number 7. What does this refer to exactly? If this was replaced with DaysInWeek or similar, much clarity is provided. You can determine that code performing offsets would be adding days, rather than a mysterious number seven.Sadly a common pattern which uses constants is the use of a single constant file or object. The beauty of constants is clarity, and the obvious fact such variables are fixed. When a constant container is used, constants are simply lumped together. These can grow in size and often become a dumping ground for all values within the application.A disadvantage of this pattern is the actual value is hidden. While a friendly variable name is great, there will come a time where you will want to know the actual value. This forces you to navigate, if only to peek at the value within the constant object. A solution is to simple perform a refactor …

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…