<br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/10/20 Jolyon Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jsmith@deltics.co.nz">jsmith@deltics.co.nz</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">You do of course mean D2010. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F497D">J</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div>Yes :-) </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">I had the same thought… all it needs now is someone to convince
me that spending time creating mocks and testing that the mocks adequately test
the things I’m really testing is time that couldn’t be better invested in
creating a robust, practical test environment to actually test the things I
want to test…. (draws breath) … I might explore the idea further</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span></p></div></div></blockquote><div>That simply is the argument for unit testing - which I suppose is always dependent on whether or not you think it will give you value. You cannot unit test without mocks as mocks mock the dependent classes. Mocks simply serve to prevent you having to implement fakes and managing that extra code... I suppose I should just try it and see!</div>
</div>-- <br>---<br>Richard Vowles, Technical Advisor<br>Developers Inc Ltd<br>web. <a href="http://www.developers-inc.co.nz">http://www.developers-inc.co.nz</a><br>ph. +64-9-3600231, mob. +64-275-467747, fax. +64-9-3600384<br>
skype. rvowles, LinkedIn, Twitter<br><br><br>