Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Mock Objects in a COM Web World

Expand Messages
  • Philip Craig
    I don t think it s pollution at all. If you are XPing in a Microsoft world, check out NetUnit at: http://www.xpdeveloper.com/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi?NetUnit Full
    Message 1 of 19 , Sep 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't think it's pollution at all.

      If you are XPing in a Microsoft world, check out NetUnit at:

      http://www.xpdeveloper.com/cgi-bin/wiki.cgi?NetUnit

      Full JUnit (bar the GUI) for .Net components.

      --- In extremeprogramming@egroups.com, "Morris, Chris" <ChrisM@S...>
      wrote:

      IMO, this is XP related ... I know I'll be heading off to more and
      more internet development in the next year or so -- and we're a MS
      shop at the moment, so I'm interested in anything related to COM
      testing...

      This is my last e-mail on this. Sorry to pollute your readers with
      non-XP mail!
    • rgams@core.com
      -- Original Message ----- From: art_thursland@tspb.com Date: Friday, September 1, 2000 9:33 am Subject: Re: RE: [XP] Mock Objects in a COM Web World ... We
      Message 2 of 19 , Sep 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        -- Original Message -----
        From: art_thursland@...
        Date: Friday, September 1, 2000 9:33 am
        Subject: Re: RE: [XP] Mock Objects in a COM Web World

        >
        > Dick wrote:
        >
        >
        > > We have written a test harness that instantiates COM objects and
        > > exercises the methods. There is no test code in either the COM
        > object> or in the application(s) that use it. Once the COM object
        > tests> properly, it becomes a black box that other applications
        > may be clients
        > > for.
        >
        > Why didn't you use VbUnit? It can test a COM object written in any
        > language.
        >

        We could have used VBUnit or CppUnit - that we wrote our own framework
        had to do with other functionality we needed. The point is that we
        test the COM object by testing the interface - a black box test I guess.

        > Your testing strategy is fine if your COM objects don't
        > instantiate other
        > COM objects.

        I don't see why that makes a difference. We test each COM object
        individually. If it passes, it should be usable in other contexts
        without additional testing. The only thing we test at any time is the
        interface of the current object. The fact that this object is creating
        other COM objects seems irrelevant.

        Dick
      • art_thursland@tspb.com
        Dick wrote ... object. ... In the application I m working on there are business COM objects that create data access COM objects. There is also a lot of
        Message 3 of 19 , Sep 1, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Dick wrote

          > The only thing we test at any time is the interface of the current
          object.
          > The fact that this object is creating other COM objects seems irrelevant.

          In the application I'm working on there are business COM objects that
          create data access COM objects. There is also a lot of VBScript on the
          Active Server Pages that shouldn't, in my opinion, be there. I'd like to
          move as much of the VBScript as I can to an application facade COM object
          so that I can test it. For a variety of reasons I want to test the
          business COM objects without actually talking to the back end database. I
          also want to test the application facade COM objects without talking to the
          actual business objects. With your strategy the unit tests for the upper
          layers become more like functional tests, since you're testing the whole
          component hierarchy. It can also be difficult to generate an abnormal
          condition in the lower level COM object that you might want to test for. I
          think I can get better test coverage with my strategy. Time will tell.

          Best Regards,

          Art
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.