Pat Kua @ Work

The intersection of technology and leadership

The world mocks too much

One of my biggest annoyances when it comes to testing is when anyone reaches for a mock out of habit. The “purists” that I prefer to call “zealots”, are overwhelming in numbers, particularly in the TDD community (you do realise you can test drive your code without mocks?) Often I see teams use excuses like, “I only want to test a single responsibility at a time.” It sounds reasonable, yet it’s generally the start of something more insidious, one where suddenly mocks become the hammer and people want to apply it to everything. I sense it through signals like when people say “I need to mock a class”, or “I need to mock a call to a superclass”. Alternatively it’s quite obvious when the number of “stub” or “ignored” calls outnumber the “mocked” calls by an order of magnitude.

Please don’t confuse my stance with “classical state based testing purists” who don’t believe in mocking. Though Martin Fowler describes two, apparently opposing, styles to testing, Classical and Mockist Testing, I don’t see them as mutually exclusive options, rather two ends of a sliding scale. I typical gauge risk as a factor for determining which approach to take. I believe in using the right tool for the right job (easy to say, harder to do right), and believe in using mocking to give me the best balance of feedback when things break, enough confidence to refactor with safety, and as a tool for driving out a better design.

Broken Glass

Image of broken glass taken from Bern@t’s flickr stream under the creative commons licence

Even though I’ve never worked with Steve or Nat, the maintainers of JMock, I believe my views align quite strongly with theirs. When I used to be on the JMock mailing list, it fascinated me to see how many of their responses focused on better programming techniques rather than caving into demands for new features. JMock is highly opinionated software and I agree with them that you don’t want to make some things too easy, particularly those tasks that lend themselves to poor design.

Tests that are difficult to write, maintain, or understand are often a huge symptom for code that is equally poorly designed. That’s why that even though Mockito is a welcome addition to the testing toolkit, I’m equally frightened by its ability to silence the screams of test code executing poorly designed production code. The dogma to test a single aspect of every class in pure isolation often leads to excessively brittle, noisy and hard to maintain test suites. Worse yet, because the interactions between objects have been effectively declared frozen by handfuls of micro-tests, any redesign incurs the additional effort of rewriting all the “mock” tests. Thank goodness sometimes we have acceptance tests. Since the first time something is written is often not the best possible design, writing excessively fine grained tests puts a much larger burden on developers who need to refine it in the future.

So what is a better approach?
Interaction testing is a great technique, with mocks a welcome addition to a developer’s toolkit. Unfortunately it’s difficult to master all aspects including the syntax of a mocking framework, listening to the tests, and responding to appropriately with refactoring or redesign. I reserve the use of mocks for three distinct purposes:

  1. Exploring potential interactions – I like to use mocks to help me understand what my consumers are trying to do, and what their ideal interactions are. I try to experiment with a couple of different approaches, different names, different signatures to understand what this object should be. Mocks don’t prevent me from doing this, though it’s my current preferred tool for this task.
  2. Isolating well known boundaries – If I need to depend on external systems, it’s best to isolate them from the rest of the application under a well defined contract. For some dependencies, this may take some time to develop, establish, stabilise and verify (for which I prefer to use classical state based testing). Once I am confident that this interface is unlikely to change, then I’m happy to move to interaction testing for these external systems.
  3. Testing the boundaries of a group of collaborators – It’s often a group of closely collaborating objects to provide any useful behaviour to a system. I err towards using classical testing to test the objects in that closely collaborating set, and defer to mocking at the boundary of these collaborators.

1 Comment

  1. Excellent post pat, the whole purpose of mocks in the context of TDD has been totally been misunderstood, it more about discovering roles and less about isolating objects. On my current project we are working on a codebase where nearly everything is mocked, the test code are simply a mirror of production code, it impossible to refactor without breaking the tests

Leave a Reply

© 2017 Pat Kua @ Work

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑