Hacker News Reader

Comment by tripple6 | Hacker News Reader

Mockito uses declarative matching style of specifying what should be mocked. You don't need to implement or even stub all of interface methods since Mockito can do it itself. It may be extremely concise. For example, interfaces may have tens methods or even more, but only one method is needed (say, java.sql.ResultSet). And finally probably the most important thing, interaction with mocks is recorded and then can be verified if certain methods were invoked with certain arguments.

View on HN

That’s the seductive power of mocking - you get a test up and running quickly. The benefit to the initial test writer is significant.

The cost is the pain - sometimes nightmarish - for other contributors to the code base since tests depending on mocking are far more brittle.

Someone changes code to check if the ResultSet is empty before further processing and a large number of your mock based tests break as the original test author will only have mocked enough of the class to support the current implementation.

Working on a 10+ year old code base, making a small simple safe change and then seeing a bunch of unit tests fail, my reaction is always “please let the failing tests not rely on mocks”.

> Someone changes code to check if the ResultSet is empty before further processing and a large number of your mock based tests break as the original test author will only have mocked enough of the class to support the current implementation.

So this change doesn't allow an empty result set, something that is no longer allowed by the new implementation but was allowed previously. Isn't that the sort of breaking change you want your regression tests to catch?

It doesn't have to be a breaking change -- an empty result set could still be allowed. It could simply be a perf improvement that avoids calling an expensive function with an empty result set, when it is known that the function is a no-op in this case.

If it's not a breaking change, why would a unit test fail as a result, whether or not using mocks/fakes for the code not under test? Unit tests should test the contract of a unit of code. Testing implementation details is better handled with assertions, right?

If the code being mocked changes its invariants the code under test that depends on that needs to be carefully re-examined. A failing unit test will alert one to that situation.

(I'm not being snarky, I don't understand your point and I want to.)

The problem occurs when the mock is incomplete. Suppose:

1. Initially codeUnderTest() calls a dependency's dep.getFoos() method, which returns a list of Foos. This method is expensive, even if there are no Foos to return.

2. Calling the real dep.getFoos() is awkward, so we mock it for tests.

3. Someone changes codeUnderTest() to first call dep.getNumberOfFoos(), which is always quick, and subsequently call dep.getFoos() only if the first method's return value is nonzero. This speeds up the common case in which there are no Foos to process.

4. The test breaks because dep.getNumberOfFoos() has not been mocked.

You could argue that the original test creator should have defensively also mocked dep.getNumberOfFoos() -- but this quickly becomes an argument that the complete functionality of dep should be mocked.

I used ResultSet because the comment above mentioned it. A clearer example of what I’m talking about might be say you replace “x.size() > 0” with “!x.isEmpty()” when x is a mocked instance of class X.

If tests (authored by someone else) break, I now have to figure out whether the breakage is due to the fact that not enough behavior was mocked or whether I have inadvertently broken something. Maybe it’s actually important that code avoid using “isEmpty”? Or do I just mock the isEmpty call and hope for the best? What if the existing mocked behavior for size() is non-trivial?

Typically you’re not dealing with something as obvious.

What is the alternative? If you write a complete implementation of an interface for test purposes, can you actually be certain that your version of x.isEmpty() behaves as the actual method? If it has not been used before, can you trust that a green test is valid without manually checking it?

When I use mocking, I try to always use real objects as return values. So if I mock a repository method, like userRepository.search(...) I would return an actual list and not a mocked object. This has worked well for me. If I actually need to test the db query itself, I use a real db

The alternative to what? Using mocks?

For example, one alternative is to let my IDE implement the interface (I don’t have to “write” a complete implementation), where the default implementations throw “not yet implemented” type exceptions - which clearly indicate that the omitted behavior is not a deliberate part of the test.

Any “mocked” behavior involves writing normal debuggable idiomatic Java code - no need to learn or use a weird DSL to express the behavior of a method body. And it’s far easier to diagnose what’s going on or expected while running the test - instead of the backwards mock approach where failures are typically reported in a non-local manner (test completes and you get unexpected invocation or missing invocation error - where or what should have made the invocation?).

My test implementation can evolve naturally - it’s all normal debuggable idiomatic Java.

Jumping ahead to the comments below: obviously, I mentioned `java.sql.ResultSet` only as an example of an extremely massive interface. But if someone starts building theories based on what is left unsaid in the example for those from outside the Java world, one could, for instance, assume that such brittle tests are simply poorly written, or that they fail to mitigate Mockito's default behavior.

In my view, one of the biggest mistakes when working with Mockito is relying on answers that return default values even when a method call has not been explicitly described, treating this as some kind of "default implementation". Instead, I prefer to explicitly forbid such behavior by throwing an `AssertionError` from the default answer. Then, if we really take "one method" literally, I explicitly state that `next()` must return `false`, clearly declaring my intent that I have implemented tests based on exactly this described behavior, which in practice most often boils down to a fluent-style list of explicitly expected interactions. Recording interactions is also critically important.

How many methods does `ResultSet` have today? 150? 200? As a Mockito user, I don't care.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com