I’ve been reading James Shore’s pattern language, Testing without Mocks with interest. It has some interesting ideas and, for me, some points of disagreement.
My first objection is to the “clickbaity” title, as if mocks were some catastrophic evil, rather than one tool amongst many. An interesting pattern language has to be more than an opposition to a minor technique.
I also see some confusion between concept and tooling. James has since written another post that clarifies his wariness about Dependency Injection frameworks but has not yet made the same point about mocking frameworks. And many of the popular frameworks are not ones I would chose. Unfortunately, almost our entire modern stack is based on widely-adopted but flawed implementations– the Unix API being a fine example–so we have to exercise our design skills.
Once again, I have to take on the argument that testing interactions means testing implementation. There’s a fundamental disagreement here. To me, for some objects, the calls they make to their surrounding environment, in response to calls they receive, is the interesting behaviour I want to test not a detail of implementation.
This is not the only alternative, but there is an established approach to object design that focusses on the messages they send to each other, dating back to Smalltalk and Erlang. Ralph Johnson called this the “mystical” school of objects. There are other schools of object design where this is less interesting.
It is perfectly possible to write tests that express these interactions clearly, just as it is possible to make a complete mess of them. Most of the bad testing I see comes from not understanding the concept and, in particular, testing at too fine a grain.
The most confusing part to me is that the proposed techniques, combining Nullable objects with Configurable Responses and Output Tracking sounds exactly like what I do with mocks, except perhaps with the substitutions plugged into different places.
So, working through the post, these are my reactions to most of his patterns:
The state vs interaction example that James uses is not one I would recommend. First,
the calls that it overwrites are static, rather than methods on an object that is
passed in, so it’s not forcing the dependency. Second, we have a heuristic of
“Stub queries, expect actions”, so I would not set expectations on simple queries;
by about the third test, I would have factored these out into common setup. Third,
Moon looks like the sort of object that I would be using in the test directly,
not stubbing out. Given the amount of Reflectomagic involved, I’m not surprised
that these tests run so slowly.
And, by the way, did anyone notice the Feature Envy?
James’ point about localising tests is important. I see one way of coping with scale it that each level of code tests its own paths, assuming that detail will be tested further down the line.
I absolutely agree that constructors should be simple. My approach is that the only thing a constructor should do is to construct the object, that is assign its fields. If I have more work to do to get there, then I write a factory method or function. I find that this ensures that objects are easy to create in situations I hadn’t planned for, like new tests. This is a technique I learned years ago from Modula-3 (which I still miss).
If I can, I avoid
start() methods on an object,
preferring to do that work outside the object and only constructing
it if I already have a working connection. Of course, that depends on
the runtime lifecycle.
For code of any size, I often end up building common infrastructure for creating test objects, using helper methods with descriptive names, so that the tests code describes just what is immediately relevant. Sometimes I can default out all the parameters, sometimes I need to make a choice first. The pushback from the constructor interface is valuable, it shows me in the code how objects are connected.
Very much agree with this. Test code needs to be treated with the same care and attention as production code, possible even more because it bridges the domain and testing. I see many codebases where the reason the tests are brittle is because they’ve never been refactored. One caveat is that sometimes I allow a bit more duplication in tests to keep them more readable.
A-Frame Architecture, Logic Sandwich, Traffic Cop
All good points. Quite often I end up with a higher-level directory that contains the core concepts of the code, as interfaces and values, with lower-level directories for various aspects of the implementation.
Grow Evolutionary Seeds
I think we’re less far apart than James presents. The flow he describes is similar to how an outside-in approach would start, especially the hard-coding of values. One advantage for me of outside-in is that it helps me to think about and discuss what we want to achieve next in domain terms. Much of the rest of this process is familiar.
Agree on most of this, except for providing a getter just for testing, to me that’s exposing implementation because it locks in some aspect of the object’s internal representation. The alternative, exposing an event to be listened for, sounds like a Mock expectation.
Largely agree here. This is why Ports-and-Adapters is not just for services as a whole but is a useful mid-level pattern within a codebase.
This is an interesting idea. I tend to build up a collection of representative constants
that I use as markers in tests and their setup, so it would be
INVENTORY_ADDRESS rather than
123 Main Street. In our approach to the builder pattern, we provide defaults for
common values so that the didn’t need to be specified repeatedly.
Again agree. What’s not made explicit is that I use Interface Discovery to pull in just the features my code needs from its environment, rather than providing a generic clean veneer over the external service. Quite often, after a bit of refactoring, I end up with an external service translator that implements a small set of interfaces driven by the needs of various bits of the main code.
Narrow Integration Tests, Paranoic Telemetry
Yes and yes
This is an interesting idea. My first question is whether, if one has a version of an object which behaves partially differently depending on circumstances, is whether this is actually more than one object and that the nullable part should be factored out.
While I absolutely agree with keeping things minimal, I struggle with this one.
First, if I need to put it close to the production code to remind me to keep up to date, then surely I’m missing some tests somewhere? Second, a constant complaint about mocking third-party code is the difficulty of ensuring that it’s compliant, which is why we recommend against doing that. How does one keep third-party code stubs compliant in this approach?
Yes. This is exactly how we started with our fist mock testing, then we got bored of the duplication and wrote some supporting libraries. We kept it as simple as we could. I struggle to understand why basic libraries are overkill for stubbing but not for, say, string operations or, even, unit testing.
As mentioned above, this sounds remarkably like mock expectations, with the disadvantage that one can’t trip the debugger with all the state in place when something goes wrong.
I wrote a chapter about using the need for event listening to guide collaborator discovery in the GOOS book. There was a time when introducing a listener for event reporting to make testing easier, as against using the log, was a radical concept.
Fake It Once You Make It
Again good stuff here. I have a question around the embedded use of Nullables. I like to use the back pressure of seeing too many parameters being passed in as a hint for missing constructs. If those instances are created as default nullables, rather than being declared as an explicit dependency, then I can’t see that.
Replace Mocks with Nullables
I’m seeing most of this as a shift in terminology, rather than a meaningful redesign. Maybe that’s useful enough. One thing I can guarantee is that if this pattern really takes off, then it will be abused, and then trashed for that abuse, in ways that James never thought possible.