Re: What I hate about *Unit frameworks.

Adam,

On 5/3/13 1:50 PM, Adam Sroka wrote:
> Perl was my first professional language. I am not afraid of monkey
> patching.
>
> A hammer is a useful tool. Please refrain from hitting yourself with it.

Thanks for the admonition. I was just trying to explain how 
monkey-patching causes more interference between tests than mocks do.

  - George

>
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:03 PM, George Dinwiddie <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Adam,
>>
>>
>> On 5/2/13 7:15 PM, Adam Sroka wrote:
>>> Hi George:
>>>
>>> That makes sense, but you can do the same thing to yourself with mocks.
>>> That's why you have to make sure you write microtests for both sides of
>> the
>>> relationship and cover the same conditions (I think J.B. calls them
>>> "contract tests.")
>>
>> No, with monkey patching you're often messing up *library code* to the
>> detriment of other tests.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I only think monkey patching is bad when you violate the implied
>> interface,
>>> or when you go way down in the inheritance hierarchy and muck with things
>>> that could have wide ranging effects (Both of which are smells in dynamic
>>> languages anyway.) But, if you were actually doing TDD something would go
>>> red when you did either of those things, right?
>>
>> Maybe. Or maybe your monkey patching makes other tests work, but the app
>> doesn't when it's in production and the library hasn't been monkey-patched.
>>
>> - George
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 7:46 AM, George Dinwiddie <
>> [email protected]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> **
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adam,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/1/13 11:25 PM, Adam Sroka wrote:
>>>>> Maybe I'm just dense, but: what is it about this that is particular to
>>>> TDD?
>>>>> Seems to me that monkey patching without tests is *fuck all* more
>>>> dangerous
>>>>> than writing a test, making it pass in the simplest way possible, and
>>>> then
>>>>> improving the design. What am I missing???
>>>>
>>>> Monkey patching is a common method to create testing seams, even by
>>>> people who would not use monkey patching in the deliverable system code.
>>>> It's a quick-and-dirty way of mocking using the real objects.
>>>>
>>>> - George
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On May 1, 2013 8:12 PM, "John Roth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> **
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/1/13 7:12 AM, David Stanek wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Angel Java Lopez
>>>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:ajlopez2000%40gmail.com>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John, usually I don't find the case "this test corrupts that test",
>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>>> wrote thousands of tests.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any example/case?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've seen this in Python tests where developers monkey-patch things
>> and
>>>>>>> forget to set them back or otherwise muck with global state. This has
>>>>>> been
>>>>>>> the result of design issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Snort. This is a continuing issue for the Python developers as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Roth

-- 
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   * George Dinwiddie *                      http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
   Software Development                    http://www.idiacomputing.com
   Consultant and Coach                    http://www.agilemaryland.org
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/testdrivendevelopment/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/testdrivendevelopment/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/