-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 09 Mar 2002 12:52, nathaniel / talbott.ws wrote:
> I asked Nat Pryce a week or so ago if he would port Ruby/Mock to
> Test::Unit. He gladly agreed (and has now done so; look for it RSN). An
> issue was brought up, however, as to the namespace the mocking package
> should live in. With his agreement, I've included most of the
> conversation below, and am soliciting feedback from the community at
> large.
>
> Nat's comments are preceded by '>'.
>
> <discussion>
>
> > I thought I'd change the API to match that of Test::Unit,
> > putting the mock classes in the Test::Mock package and
> > the "test/mock.rb" file."
>
> Hmmm... do you think it should be in Test::Mock or Test::Unit::Mock? My
> (current, subject-to-change) vision is that the Test module will contain
> sub-modules related to various types/stages of testing, such as
> Test::Unit and Test::Acceptance. It seems mocking is specific to unit
> testing, but I could certainly be convinced otherwise. It's your call
> either way, of course.
>
> > I've put it into the Test::Mock module because my experience
> > is that tools don't fit neatly into just one stage of testing.
> > I have seen JUnit used for acceptance testing, for example.
> > I'd prefer the Test namespace to contain submodules for
> > different testing *techniques*, such as unit tests, mock
> > objects, code coverage, profiling, GUI automation, etc."
>
> Hmmm... good point. I definitely agree about things not fitting neatly
> in to categories; sometimes the categories seem very arbitrary indeed.
> Our company has used JUnit to do acceptance testing before, and even in
> the acceptance testing framework I have for Ruby (which I hope I might
> be able to genericize and release some day) I use Test::Unit assertions.
> So this point is well-taken.
>
> > Also I don't like overly large module paths but that might
> > just be because I've been a java.programmer.for.far.too.long.now :-)
>
> tell.me.about.it.because.i.have.been.too :-)
>
> > Let me know your thoughts on this though -- I can be
> > persuaded otherwise.
>
> I'm at the point where I'm not sure which it ought to be... would you be
> OK with elevating this particular discussion to the ruby-talk mailing
> list? It seems like others might have opinions and good reasons for one
> way or the other, and I feel like I'd be better able to formulate an
> opinion after hearing a few more sides. I can put together a summary of
> what we've discussed so far and post it if you're agreeable.
>
> > That's a great idea.
>
> </discussion>
>
> The only other point I'll make is that the mocking package does have a
> dependency on Test::Unit, so perhaps the module it lives in should
> reflect that. But perhaps not.
>
> My guess is there are a lot of opinions on the namespace issue in the
> community (I know categorization in RubyGems caused some interesting
> discussions), and I'd like to hear them all. Of course, in the end, it
> will be Nat's call as to how exactly Ruby/Mock deals with it.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Nathaniel
>
> <:((><
> + - -
>
> | RoleModel Software, Inc.
> | EQUIP VI

First off, thanks for both your works - I use them both often. In fact, I use 
them so often that I find my usage is not just limited to unit testing. For 
example I use TestUnit and RubyMock to do acceptance testing with Mock 
HttpRequest objects if I happen to be doing web programming. From my POV I'm 
more partial to the Test::Mock namespace. Just my bag of rocks worth :)

- -- 
Signed,
Holden Glova
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8iWWS+mF116Lw2cQRAhiYAJ9heLMzAK0dx735xEexGBKPYE1e0gCfY728
NV5kQ0b4wsjq43NUKvpHit0=
=2OAu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----