ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Hatcher <>
Subject Re: task testing style?
Date Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:24:20 GMT
Both styles of testing have their merits.  There are some mock objects 
in Ant's test infrastructure (MockBuildListener, for example).

The most important thing, of course, is that tests are created that 
ensure that the production code is working as it should.  Sure, there 
are more moving parts in the functional-style.  Ideally there would be 
all flavors of testing in place to ensure all levels are functioning 

There are certainly no objections about incorporating more mock-style 
testing into Ant's codebase.  The more testing the better!

The dilemma I've encountered when folks catch on to mock unit testing 
is that they get carried away with it and try to mock too much 
functionality rather than keeping it focused, at which point you end up 
with mock objects that are so complex that they require their own unit 
tests :)


On Nov 16, 2004, at 12:33 PM, Russell Gold wrote:

> The tests I have looked at in ant appear mostly to use a semi-
> functional test style: they use xml to define a task, run it, and then
> check some results (which may simply be the lack of an error). I am
> used to a more unit testing style, in which external classes or
> subsystems are stubbed out. For example, for my dependencies task, I
> want to confirm that a dependency is downloaded only if it is not
> already present, which I do by mocking the fetch mechanism. Is this
> approach being used somewhere in ant? Has there been any discussion of
> the two approaches to testing?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message