Comments on: Using Moq to Implement Tests (and Avoid Stubs)

By: Daniel Cazzulino

Daniel Cazzulino — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:44:16 +0000

I may add that the following lambda can be shortened significantly:

mockOrderStorage.Setup(os => os.GetOrder(It.IsAny())).Returns((int id) => { var order = new Order() { OrderId = id }; return order; });

mockOrderStorage.Setup(os => os.GetOrder(It.IsAny())).Returns((int id) => new Order { OrderId = id });

(no need to do the var neither the return )

By: wekempf

wekempf — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:19:04 +0000

Looks like you read the Martin Fowler article, and failed to understand it. Your test uses a stub, not a mock. According to Fowler, the big difference is in what your testing. With a Stub, your testing state. With a Mock, your testing behavior. You didn't care if GetOrder was called, you only cared about the result (state) of the call to ShipOrder. This means you used a stub, regardless of whether or not the Moq uses Mock as the type name here.

You seem to equate stubs with hand coded classes and mocks with runtime generated objects. This isn't accurate, and either can be either hand coded or generated (runtime or compile time).

By: Reflective Perspective - Chris Alcock » The Morning Brew #295

Reflective Perspective - Chris Alcock » The Morning Brew #295 — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:39:06 +0000

[...] Using Moq to Implement Tests (and Avoid Stubs) – Michael Hamrah talks about the use of the Moq framework in testing, and talks about preferring Mocks over stubs when testing. [...]

By: DotNetShoutout

DotNetShoutout — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:16:00 +0000

Using Moq to Implement Tests (and Avoid Stubs) | Adventures in HttpContext...

Thank you for submitting this cool story - Trackback from DotNetShoutout...