Skip to main content

Types of Test Doubles

Mock is an overloaded term in software development. Sadly this leads to developers answering with "mock it" when a mock object may not be the right solution. Test Doubles are a more general term. I should try to use this naming more than I do at present - a goal I aim to work towards. The result of choosing the wrong test double may seem innocent but the effect will be a very different style of test method, with increased coupling to implementation details. The following definitions are ordered in terms of complexity and increased coupling.


Provide canned responses. By their nature stubs would respond to queries. Stubs allow you to test paths of the code that would be otherwise difficult as they always provide the same answer.


Similar to a stub but with the addition that a spy records its actions. When responding to a query or a command the spy keeps track of what happened, how often and anything else relevant. The test can then inspect the spy for the answer, deciding whether to pass or fail. Unlike Mocks, spies play well with the Arrange-Act-Assert pattern. Spies let you answer the question has something happened whereas Mocks tend to lead you towards how has something happened.


Fake objects tend to be used in higher level tests. These are fake implementations of the object they are standing in for. A fake repository would be implemented in a simple manner, instead opting for a simple in memory hash table for its implementation. This allows tests to be run with some confidence that the system will behave as expected. Combined with Contract Tests, fakes can turbo charge the speed of your test execution while still providing confidence.


Similar to spies mocks are primarily in charge with recording what happens. However while spies are silent in their nature relying on the test to interrogate them, mocks differ by throwing exceptions if their expectations are not met. Mocks natural partner is commands. Unlike spies Mocks can struggle to fit into the Arrange-Act-Assert pattern. Of all the test doubles Mocks are the most coupled to implementation details so their use should be limited.


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…