« Return to Thread: First Test - Ignoring addListener()
RE: First Test - Ignoring addListener()
by Guillaume Jeudy
::
Rate this Message:
Hi,
I don't know how you setup your tests but if you have a separate folder containing test classes with exactly the same package structure as your production classes you should be able to make you run() method package-private or protected. That way you don't give on too much encapsulation and you still allow your PresenterTest class to see the Presenter run method.
________________________________
From: Greg Akins [mailto:gakins@...]
Sent: Thu 4/9/2009 12:27 PM
To: user@...
Subject: Re: [jmock-user] First Test - Ignoring addListener()
On Apr 9, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Jeudy, Guillaume wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can you provide code snippets of the class under test? If you are
> mocking addListener() call which should eventually trigger a call to
> creditCardAuthenticated method then I don't see how you can succeed
> your test. addListener() will be called and the mock will ignore the
> call ending your test there and will probably throw an exception
> because creditCardAuthenticated expectation wasn't met.
That's exactly what happens. I had, as another post on this thread
mentions, seen examples with JMock 1.2 that captured the results of
the addListener call and created a proxy to the method which could be
executed (at least I think that's how it works).
>
> Maybe you need to change your perspective and create separate tests.
> One that tests your view to ensure addListener() does call run on
> the Presenter. Another test for your presenter to ensure run() calls
> creditCardAuthenticated() method.
Splitting it up like that makes sense. But what I think I need to
test here is that if the presenter gives a view a listener and the
listener is invoked that it executes the method as expected. Also,
run() is private, because it's only called through the listener.. if I
can get a proxy to the listener then I don't have to make run() public.
This all might be way to complicated, but my motivation is to use
PresenterFirst to separate logic from UI and I can't think of another
good way to test that.
>
> Having small tests focusing on testing a single thing is better
> because it makes your tests less brittle to changes.
>
> -Guillaume
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Greg Akins [mailto:gakins@...]
> Sent: Thu 4/9/2009 11:43 AM
> To: user@...
> Subject: [jmock-user] First Test - Ignoring addListener()
>
>
> Getting started with JMock.. sanity check. (Also, this might be a
> repeat. I tried to post through the gmane archive, but that didn't
> appear to work).
>
> I am testing a PresenterFirst pattern.. and want to test with
> JMock. The Presenter calls the View's addListener method which
> calls the Presenters run() method, which in turn calls the view
> creditCardAuthenticated method. I don't care about the listener
> being called, only that the creditCardAuthenticated method is
> eventually called. Given all that, is this the right way to
> construct the test?
>
> final IView viewMock = context.mock(IView.class);
>
> context.checking(new Expectations() {{
> ignoring (any(IView.class)).method("addListener") ;
> }}) ;
>
>
>
>
> context.checking( new Expectations()
> {{
> oneOf (viewMock).creditCardAuthenticated(true);
> }});
>
>
>
>
> CreditCardPresenter presenter = new
> CreditCardPresenter(viewMock) ;
>
> Greg Akins
> Director of Software Development
> 724.935.8281 x 210 (office)
> 724.935.8283 (fax)
> 724.454.7790 (cell)
> http://www.towercare.com <http://www.towercare.com/> <http://www.towercare.com/>
> gakins@...
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
> This electronic mail (including any attachments) may contain
> information that is privileged, confidential, and/or otherwise
> protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended
> recipient(s). Any dissemination or use of this electronic email or
> its contents (including any attachments) by persons other than the
> intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply email
> so that we may correct our internal records. Please then delete the
> original message (including any attachments) in its entirety. Thank
> you.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_emailGreg Akins
Director of Software Development
724.935.8281 x 210 (office)
724.935.8283 (fax)
724.454.7790 (cell)
http://www.towercare.com <http://www.towercare.com/>
gakins@...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
This electronic mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient(s). Any dissemination or use of this electronic email or its contents (including any attachments) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply email so that we may correct our internal records. Please then delete the original message (including any attachments) in its entirety. Thank you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
I don't know how you setup your tests but if you have a separate folder containing test classes with exactly the same package structure as your production classes you should be able to make you run() method package-private or protected. That way you don't give on too much encapsulation and you still allow your PresenterTest class to see the Presenter run method.
________________________________
From: Greg Akins [mailto:gakins@...]
Sent: Thu 4/9/2009 12:27 PM
To: user@...
Subject: Re: [jmock-user] First Test - Ignoring addListener()
On Apr 9, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Jeudy, Guillaume wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can you provide code snippets of the class under test? If you are
> mocking addListener() call which should eventually trigger a call to
> creditCardAuthenticated method then I don't see how you can succeed
> your test. addListener() will be called and the mock will ignore the
> call ending your test there and will probably throw an exception
> because creditCardAuthenticated expectation wasn't met.
That's exactly what happens. I had, as another post on this thread
mentions, seen examples with JMock 1.2 that captured the results of
the addListener call and created a proxy to the method which could be
executed (at least I think that's how it works).
>
> Maybe you need to change your perspective and create separate tests.
> One that tests your view to ensure addListener() does call run on
> the Presenter. Another test for your presenter to ensure run() calls
> creditCardAuthenticated() method.
Splitting it up like that makes sense. But what I think I need to
test here is that if the presenter gives a view a listener and the
listener is invoked that it executes the method as expected. Also,
run() is private, because it's only called through the listener.. if I
can get a proxy to the listener then I don't have to make run() public.
This all might be way to complicated, but my motivation is to use
PresenterFirst to separate logic from UI and I can't think of another
good way to test that.
>
> Having small tests focusing on testing a single thing is better
> because it makes your tests less brittle to changes.
>
> -Guillaume
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Greg Akins [mailto:gakins@...]
> Sent: Thu 4/9/2009 11:43 AM
> To: user@...
> Subject: [jmock-user] First Test - Ignoring addListener()
>
>
> Getting started with JMock.. sanity check. (Also, this might be a
> repeat. I tried to post through the gmane archive, but that didn't
> appear to work).
>
> I am testing a PresenterFirst pattern.. and want to test with
> JMock. The Presenter calls the View's addListener method which
> calls the Presenters run() method, which in turn calls the view
> creditCardAuthenticated method. I don't care about the listener
> being called, only that the creditCardAuthenticated method is
> eventually called. Given all that, is this the right way to
> construct the test?
>
> final IView viewMock = context.mock(IView.class);
>
> context.checking(new Expectations() {{
> ignoring (any(IView.class)).method("addListener") ;
> }}) ;
>
>
>
>
> context.checking( new Expectations()
> {{
> oneOf (viewMock).creditCardAuthenticated(true);
> }});
>
>
>
>
> CreditCardPresenter presenter = new
> CreditCardPresenter(viewMock) ;
>
> Greg Akins
> Director of Software Development
> 724.935.8281 x 210 (office)
> 724.935.8283 (fax)
> 724.454.7790 (cell)
> http://www.towercare.com <http://www.towercare.com/> <http://www.towercare.com/>
> gakins@...
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
> This electronic mail (including any attachments) may contain
> information that is privileged, confidential, and/or otherwise
> protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended
> recipient(s). Any dissemination or use of this electronic email or
> its contents (including any attachments) by persons other than the
> intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply email
> so that we may correct our internal records. Please then delete the
> original message (including any attachments) in its entirety. Thank
> you.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
Director of Software Development
724.935.8281 x 210 (office)
724.935.8283 (fax)
724.454.7790 (cell)
http://www.towercare.com <http://www.towercare.com/>
gakins@...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
This electronic mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient(s). Any dissemination or use of this electronic email or its contents (including any attachments) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply email so that we may correct our internal records. Please then delete the original message (including any attachments) in its entirety. Thank you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
winmail.dat (11K) « Return to Thread: First Test - Ignoring addListener()
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
