6 ms·

No that’s not a mock that’s a stub. See this book from software engineers at Google, it talks about various test doubles: https://abseil.io/resources/swe-book/h

No that’s not a mock that’s a stub. See this book from software engineers at Google, it talks about various test doubles: https://abseil.io/resources/swe-book/html/ch13.html https://abseil.io/resources/swe-book/html/ch13.html

jmholla 4y ago
They use the word mock several times to explain stubbing. I think they mean stubbing is a type of mocking not an independent approach. They even use a mocking library to create stubs in the Google article.
- BiteCode_dev 4y ago
  Indeed, like people stating something is a deferred or a future instead of promise, and then pointing out a minor difference in their approach that justifies a whole new taxonomy.
- Izkata 4y ago
  "Mock" can be both a noun and a verb. As a noun, it's an alternative to stubs, fakes, and other such things. As a verb, it refers to the "monkey patching" method of putting those into place, in a way that undoing it is automatic and won't leak into other tests. The title seems to be referring to this second version, showing us ways to avoid patching with things like dependency injection.
inadequatespace 4y ago
Also https://www.martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html https://www.martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html
Aeolun 4y ago
Mocks are for objects, stubs are for responses and ‘fakes’ are basically the same thing as mocks.
- Cyph0n 4y ago
  Fakes are not mocks. A fake is an actual (simplified) implementation of the dependency. For example, if your dependency is a distributed key-value store, a fake would expose the same API but using an in-memory hashmap under the hood.
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    Yeah no, that’s a mock. At least, that’s been a mock ever since I started prgramming 15 years ago. Only later did libraries that automatically mock dependencies appear (and I presume people suddenly felt a need for a new name for not-automatically mocked dependencies?

jmholla 4y ago

They use the word mock several times to explain stubbing. I think they mean stubbing is a type of mocking not an independent approach. They even use a mocking library to create stubs in the Google article.

BiteCode_dev 4y ago
Indeed, like people stating something is a deferred or a future instead of promise, and then pointing out a minor difference in their approach that justifies a whole new taxonomy.
Izkata 4y ago
"Mock" can be both a noun and a verb. As a noun, it's an alternative to stubs, fakes, and other such things. As a verb, it refers to the "monkey patching" method of putting those into place, in a way that undoing it is automatic and won't leak into other tests. The title seems to be referring to this second version, showing us ways to avoid patching with things like dependency injection.

inadequatespace 4y ago

Also https://www.martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html https://www.martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html

Aeolun 4y ago

Mocks are for objects, stubs are for responses and ‘fakes’ are basically the same thing as mocks.

Cyph0n 4y ago
Fakes are not mocks. A fake is an actual (simplified) implementation of the dependency. For example, if your dependency is a distributed key-value store, a fake would expose the same API but using an in-memory hashmap under the hood.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  Yeah no, that’s a mock. At least, that’s been a mock ever since I started prgramming 15 years ago. Only later did libraries that automatically mock dependencies appear (and I presume people suddenly felt a need for a new name for not-automatically mocked dependencies?