A response to James Shore's Nullable pattern

Some of it conflicts with pre-existing usage in ways that could be confusing. For example, "nullable" already has a meaning in modern type systems. It would be weird to have a "nullable" object stored in a non-null variable.

I don't have a clear definition of integrity tests and would describe it as verifying the interface (or combined behaviour) of two classes/objects. [It's exceedingly difficult to google.] These tests can mock anything other than the things which are part of the interface being tested. The ones I wrote tended to be meta/generic in nature: e.g. validating that all valid inputs to one produce valid outputs from the pair, or invalid inputs to one call nothing outside of the pair, etc. Some slow integration testing with harder to setup/maintain data can be replaced with faster/simpler integrity tests.