| ... |
... |
@@ -1,10 +1,9 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-=== Purpose === |
|
1 |
+### Purpose |
| 2 |
2 |
|
| 3 |
3 |
* **Mocking simplifies unit testing by replacing the dependencies** of the unit being tested with simplified, simulated versions called mocks. Example: Consider a unit under test that relies on a database. In testing, the database can be mocked to return a static value, eliminating the need for an actual database. |
| 4 |
4 |
|
|
5 |
+### Benefits of Mocking |
| 5 |
5 |
|
| 6 |
|
-=== Benefits of Mocking === |
| 7 |
|
- |
| 8 |
8 |
* Isolation of units to test each unit separately, dramatically reducing complexity and increasing test execution speed by replacing loaded modules with mocks. |
| 9 |
9 |
* Simplifies the re-creation of specific scenarios (use cases, boundary cases). |
| 10 |
10 |
* Expose hidden internals of production code without compromising encapsulation. |
| ... |
... |
@@ -11,11 +11,10 @@ |
| 11 |
11 |
* Injection of test-specific behaviors not present in production code. |
| 12 |
12 |
* Enables the simulation of indirect dependencies by letting mocks return other mocks. |
| 13 |
13 |
|
| 14 |
|
-=== === |
|
13 |
+### |
| 15 |
15 |
|
| 16 |
|
-=== Types of Mocks === |
|
15 |
+### Types of Mocks |
| 17 |
17 |
|
| 18 |
|
-(% style="text-align: justify;" %) |
| 19 |
19 |
Stubs are by far the most common type of mock. Keep your tests as simple as possible. Make them more complex only when necessary. |
| 20 |
20 |
|
| 21 |
21 |
* **Stubs**: Simplest form, returning a hardcoded value or providing an empty method body. |
| ... |
... |
@@ -23,14 +23,14 @@ |
| 23 |
23 |
* **Spy**: Records internal data of the unit being tested when such data is not directly accessible. |
| 24 |
24 |
* **Mock object**: Contains complex logic, simulates behaviors such as computation and exception handling, and can even run tests. |
| 25 |
25 |
|
| 26 |
|
-=== === |
|
24 |
+### |
| 27 |
27 |
|
| 28 |
|
-=== Tips === |
|
26 |
+### Tips |
| 29 |
29 |
|
| 30 |
30 |
* **Mock third-party libraries in unit tests** to ensure proper unit functionality. However, they should not be mocked in component and integration tests. |
| 31 |
31 |
* Aim for a **minimal number of dependencies in a unit** for easier testing and mocking: |
| 32 |
|
-** Limit dependencies in a unit in a similar way to the best practices for function arguments: the fewer the better, with an absolute maximum of three. |
| 33 |
|
-** Prefer many small classes/units to one large one for easier testing. |
| 34 |
|
-** If a class has excessive dependencies, consider splitting it up or extracting some dependencies into a new class to create smaller, more cohesive units. |
| 35 |
|
-** If a production class requires more than one test class, it's probably a sign that the class is too large. |
| 36 |
|
-** Overly complex test code may indicate an overly large production class. |
|
30 |
+ * Limit dependencies in a unit in a similar way to the best practices for function arguments: the fewer the better, with an absolute maximum of three. |
|
31 |
+ * Prefer many small classes/units to one large one for easier testing. |
|
32 |
+ * If a class has excessive dependencies, consider splitting it up or extracting some dependencies into a new class to create smaller, more cohesive units. |
|
33 |
+ * If a production class requires more than one test class, it's probably a sign that the class is too large. |
|
34 |
+ * Overly complex test code may indicate an overly large production class. |
