openstack team mailing list archive

[Soren Hansen <soren@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

2011/11/23 Sandy Walsh <sandy.walsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> :) yeah, you're completely misunderstanding me.

Likewise! :)

> So, you've made a much better StubOutWithMock() and slightly better stubs.Set() by (essentially) ignoring the method parameter checks and just focusing on the return type.

No, no. Read my e-mail again. I don't want to do it that way either. I
showed two examples of what I'd like to get rid of, followed by what I'd
like to do instead.

> Side note:
> I don't view tests that permit
> exercise_the_routine_that_will_eventually_do_an_instance_get()
> calls to be unit tests ... they're integration tests and the source of all this headache in the first place.

I meant "eventually" as in "it'll probably do a bunch of other things,
but also do an instance_get", not as in "some number of layers down,
it'll do an instance_get".

> A unit test should be
> exercise_the_routine_that_will_directly_call_instance_get()
>
> Hopefully we're saying the same thing on this last point?

Absolutely.

-- 
Soren Hansen        | http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer    | http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/