[Pharo-project] Fwd: [Pharo-users] TestMock: a full featured mock testing framework now available in SqueakSource

laurent laffont laurent.laffont at gmail.com
Wed Nov 24 14:55:43 CET 2010


I'm lost ... actually tests are in PharoCore.  It is planned to remove them
?

Laurent

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse at inria.fr
> wrote:

> Nothing should be in the core (not even the tests)
> in the core we should have a way to load package from a distribution
> server.
>
> Now if this is in Pharo-dev this is another story :)
> We can get tests and mock and mock framework.
>
> Stef
>
>
> > I agree with you Dennis. TDD practices are far ahead in Ruby / Java /
> Python world.
> >
> > BUT IMHO can be a real cool neaty great platform for TDD because we have:
> dynamic development.
> >
> > What I think we miss:
> > - put  a Mock framework in PharoCore - Mocks should be a standard tool
> even for low-level stuff
> > - introduce pragmas to declare tests / setUp / tearDown methods so I can
> write
> >
> > AddressBookWithLaurentAndDennis>>createAddressBook
> >   <setUpTest>
> >   bla bla
> >
> > AddressBookWithLaurentAndDennis>>shouldHaveNumberOfContactsAnswersTwo
> >   <test>
> >   blabla
> >
> >
> AddressBookWithLaurentAndDennis>>ifDennisRemovedNumberOfContactsShouldAnswersOne
> >   <test>
> >   bla bla
> >
> >
> >
> > - (harder) interface to / creation of an executable requirements / BDD
> framework like Cucumber http://cukes.info/
> >
> > Laurent
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Dennis Schetinin <chaetal at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > As for me, I'm simply unable to establish smooth test-driven process
> without Mocks. I think it does not depend on language at all.
> >
> > Without mocks I have to divide the task I have into smaller independent
> parts. It's actually an up-front design. I can make a mistake (I usually
> do); even worse it's often just impossible to accomplish because too many
> subcomponents usually interact thoroughly and I simply don't know which one
> to implement first :). So, without mocks I have to code bottom-up, from
> details to general. This is unnatural and error-prone.
> >
> > With mocks I can start directly from the task I have. I get a use case
> and write a test for the one. Creating the test I detect subcomponents
> needed, understand how they should interact and document that in the same
> test. As those subcomponents do not exist yet, I have to specify them and
> their behavior right in the test (if I don't want to break the process I've
> just started). That's why I really need mocks. Then I can take another use
> case or implement one of the mocks I used as a real object and so on. Thus,
> mocks allow me to go top-down and implement only the things I really need,
> not the things I think I'll need.
> >
> > Are there other, maybe better, approaches?
> >
> > Concerning TDD popularity… I'm not sure TDD plays the role it should in
> Smalltalk community.
> >
> > Messing with Smalltalk for about 7–8 years, I can't say I often see real
> TDD code. About 50–70% (depending on Smalltalk dialect) of frameworks I use
> have no tests at all. The rest often looks being tested a posteriori.
> Perhaps, Pharo is the only exclusion…
> >
> > And if TDD is really popular and widely used, why do we have so much
> regression bugs even in core subsystems even in commercial Smalltalks?
> >
> > Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > 2010/11/23 laurent laffont <laurent.laffont at gmail.com>
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Luc Fabresse <luc.fabresse at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Dennis,
> >
> >  Yes, TDD is highly popular and encouraged in the Smalltalk community.
> >  And mocks are not necessary in most cases.
> >
> >
> > Hi Luc,
> >
> > why Mocks are less necessary in Smalltalk than in other
> (Ruby/Python/whatever...) languages ? Do you have some examples / link ?
> >
> > Sometimes I think a mocking library should be in PharoCore so I don't
> need to write my own mocks.....
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Laurent
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > #Luc
> >
> >
> > 2010/11/23 Dennis Schetinin <chaetal at gmail.com>
> >
> > How is it compared to Mocketry (
> http://www.squeaksource.com/Mocketry.html)? SMock?
> >
> > BTW, isn't TDD without mocks a bit incomplete? And is TDD popular among
> smalltalkers actually?
> >
> > 2010/11/22 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck at gmail.com>
> >
> > This is cool Anindya. I don't need mocks right now, but I will keep it in
> mind!
> >
> > I cc'ed Pharo-dev mailing list.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Mariano
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Anindya Haldar <anindya_haldar at yahoo.com>
> > Date: Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:11 AM
> > Subject: [Pharo-users] TestMock: a full featured mock testing framework
> now available in SqueakSource
> > To: pharo-users at lists.gforge.inria.fr
> >
> >
> > Dear Pharoers,
> >
> > TestMcok is a full featured mock based test framework that I am very glad
> to contribute to the community. It is in squeaksource under the project name
> TestMock. Please feel free to try it, and feedback will be greatly
> appreciated. The wiki section includes a brief how-to guide with code
> examples.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Anindya Haldar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pharo-users mailing list
> > Pharo-users at lists.gforge.inria.fr
> > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dennis Schetinin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dennis Schetinin
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/pharo-project/attachments/20101124/81e3c628/attachment.htm>


More information about the Pharo-project mailing list