What s the difference between faking mocking and stubbing

Question

I know how I use these terms  but I m wondering if there are accepted definitions for faking  mocking  and stubbing for unit tests   How do you define these for your tests   Describe situations where you might use each   Here is how I use them   Fake  a class that implements an interface but contains fixed data and no logic   Simply returns  good  or  bad  data depending on the implementation   Mock  a class that implements an interface and allows the ability to dynamically set the values to return exceptions to throw from particular methods and provides the ability to check if particular methods have been called not called   Stub  Like a mock class  except that it doesn t provide the ability to verify that methods have been called not called   Mocks and stubs can be hand generated or generated by a mocking framework   Fake classes are generated by hand   I use mocks primarily to verify interactions between my class and dependent classes   I use stubs once I have verified the interactions and am testing alternate paths through my code   I use fake classes primarily to abstract out data dependencies or when mocks stubs are too tedious to set up each time

User · Answer

all of them are called Test Doubles and used to inject the dependencies that your test case needs.

Stub: It already has a predefined behavior to set your expectation for example, stub returns only the success case of your API response

A mock is a smarter stub. You verify your test passes through it. so you could make amock that return either the success or failure success depending on the condition could be changed in your test case.

User · Answer

If you are familiar with Arrange-Act-Assert  then one way of explaining the difference between stub and mock that might be useful for you  is that stubs belong to the arrange section  as they are for arranging input state  and mocks belong to the assert section as they are for asserting results against   Dummies don t do anything  They are just for filling up parameter lists  so that you don t get undefined or null errors  They also exist to satisfy the type checker in strictly typed languages  so that you can be allowed to compile and run

User · Answer

Unit testing - is an approach of testing where the unit class  method  is under control  Test double - is not a primary object from OOP world   It is a realisation which is created temporary to test  check or during development  Test doubles types   fake object is a real implementation of interface protocol  or an extend which is using an inheritance or other approaches which can be used to create - is dependency  Usually it is created by developer as a simplest solution to substitute some dependency  stub object is a bare object 0  nil and methods without logic  with extra state which is predefined by developer  to define returned values  Usually it is created by framework  mock object is very similar to stub object but the extra state is changed during program execution to check if something happened method was called    spy object is a real object with a  quot partial mocking quot   It means that you work with a non-double object except mocked behavior  dummy object is object which is necessary to run a test but no one variable or method of this object is not called    stub vs mock Martin Fowler said  There is a difference in that the stub uses state verification while the mock uses behavior verification    Mockito mock vs spy

User · Answer

Stub - an object that provides predefined answers to method calls    Mock - an object on which you set expectations   Fake - an object with limited capabilities  for the purposes of testing   e g  a fake web service    Test Double is the general term for stubs  mocks and fakes  But informally  you ll often hear people simply call them mocks

User · Answer

As mentioned by the top-voted answer  Martin Fowler discusses these distinctions in Mocks Aren t Stubs  and in particular the subheading The Difference Between Mocks and Stubs  so make sure to read that article   Rather than focusing on how these things are different  I think it s more enlightening to focus on why these are distinct concepts  Each exists for a different purpose   Fakes  A fake is an implementation that behaves  naturally   but is not  real   These are fuzzy concepts and so different people have different understandings of what makes things a fake   One example of a fake is an in-memory database  e g  using sqlite with the  memory  store   You would never use this for production  since the data is not persisted   but it s perfectly adequate as a database to use in a testing environment  It s also much more lightweight than a  real  database   As another example  perhaps you use some kind of object store  e g  Amazon S3  in production  but in a test you can simply save objects to files on disk  then your  save to disk  implementation would be a fake   Or you could even fake the  save to disk  operation by using an in-memory filesystem instead    As a third example  imagine an object that provides a cache API  an object that implements the correct interface but that simply performs no caching at all but always returns a cache miss would be a kind of fake   The purpose of a fake is not to affect the behavior of the system under test  but rather to simplify the implementation of the test  by removing unnecessary or heavyweight dependencies    Stubs  A stub is an implementation that behaves  unnaturally   It is preconfigured  usually by the test set-up  to respond to specific inputs with specific outputs   The purpose of a stub is to get your system under test into a specific state  For example  if you are writing a test for some code that interacts with a REST API  you could stub out the REST API with an API that always returns a canned response  or that responds to an API request with a specific error  This way you could write tests that make assertions about how the system reacts to these states  for example  testing the response your users get if the API returns a 404 error   A stub is usually implemented to only respond to the exact interactions you ve told it to respond to  But the key feature that makes something a stub is its purpose  a stub is all about setting up your test case   Mocks  A mock is similar to a stub  but with verification added in  The purpose of a mock is to make assertions about how your system under test interacted with the dependency   For example  if you are writing a test for a system that uploads files to a website  you could build a mock that accepts a file and that you can use to assert that the uploaded file was correct  Or  on a smaller scale  it s common to use a mock of an object to verify that the system under test calls specific methods of the mocked object   Mocks are tied to interaction testing  which is a specific testing methodology  People who prefer to test system state rather than system interactions will use mocks sparingly if at all   Test doubles  Fakes  stubs  and mocks all belong to the category of test doubles  A test double is any object or system you use in a test instead of something else  Most automated software testing involves the use of test doubles of some kind or another  Some other kinds of test doubles include dummy values  spies  and I O blackholes

User · Answer

As mentioned by the top-voted answer  Martin Fowler discusses these distinctions in Mocks Aren t Stubs  and in particular the subheading The Difference Between Mocks and Stubs  so make sure to read that article   Rather than focusing on how these things are different  I think it s more enlightening to focus on why these are distinct concepts  Each exists for a different purpose   Fakes  A fake is an implementation that behaves  naturally   but is not  real   These are fuzzy concepts and so different people have different understandings of what makes things a fake   One example of a fake is an in-memory database  e g  using sqlite with the  memory  store   You would never use this for production  since the data is not persisted   but it s perfectly adequate as a database to use in a testing environment  It s also much more lightweight than a  real  database   As another example  perhaps you use some kind of object store  e g  Amazon S3  in production  but in a test you can simply save objects to files on disk  then your  save to disk  implementation would be a fake   Or you could even fake the  save to disk  operation by using an in-memory filesystem instead    As a third example  imagine an object that provides a cache API  an object that implements the correct interface but that simply performs no caching at all but always returns a cache miss would be a kind of fake   The purpose of a fake is not to affect the behavior of the system under test  but rather to simplify the implementation of the test  by removing unnecessary or heavyweight dependencies    Stubs  A stub is an implementation that behaves  unnaturally   It is preconfigured  usually by the test set-up  to respond to specific inputs with specific outputs   The purpose of a stub is to get your system under test into a specific state  For example  if you are writing a test for some code that interacts with a REST API  you could stub out the REST API with an API that always returns a canned response  or that responds to an API request with a specific error  This way you could write tests that make assertions about how the system reacts to these states  for example  testing the response your users get if the API returns a 404 error   A stub is usually implemented to only respond to the exact interactions you ve told it to respond to  But the key feature that makes something a stub is its purpose  a stub is all about setting up your test case   Mocks  A mock is similar to a stub  but with verification added in  The purpose of a mock is to make assertions about how your system under test interacted with the dependency   For example  if you are writing a test for a system that uploads files to a website  you could build a mock that accepts a file and that you can use to assert that the uploaded file was correct  Or  on a smaller scale  it s common to use a mock of an object to verify that the system under test calls specific methods of the mocked object   Mocks are tied to interaction testing  which is a specific testing methodology  People who prefer to test system state rather than system interactions will use mocks sparingly if at all   Test doubles  Fakes  stubs  and mocks all belong to the category of test doubles  A test double is any object or system you use in a test instead of something else  Most automated software testing involves the use of test doubles of some kind or another  Some other kinds of test doubles include dummy values  spies  and I O blackholes

User · Answer

Stub - an object that provides predefined answers to method calls    Mock - an object on which you set expectations   Fake - an object with limited capabilities  for the purposes of testing   e g  a fake web service    Test Double is the general term for stubs  mocks and fakes  But informally  you ll often hear people simply call them mocks

User · Answer

I am surprised that this question has been around for so long and nobody has as yet provided an answer based on Roy Osherove s  The Art of Unit Testing    In  3 1 Introducing stubs  defines a stub as      A stub is a controllable replacement for an existing dependency    or collaborator  in the system  By using a stub  you can test your code without   dealing with the dependency directly    And defines the difference between stubs and mocks as      The main thing to remember about mocks versus stubs is that mocks are just like stubs  but you assert against the mock object  whereas you do not assert against a stub    Fake is just the name used for both stubs and mocks  For example when you don t care about the distinction between stubs and mocks   The way Osherove s distinguishes between stubs and mocks  means that any class used as a fake for testing can be both a stub or a mock  Which it is for a specific test depends entirely on how you write the checks in your test     When your test checks values in the class under test  or actually anywhere but the fake  the fake was used as a stub  It just provided values for the class under test to use  either directly through values returned by calls on it or indirectly through causing side effects  in some state  as a result of calls on it  When your test checks values of the fake  it was used as a mock    Example of a test where class FakeX is used as a stub   const pleaseReturn5   5  var fake   new FakeX pleaseReturn5   var cut   new ClassUnderTest fake    cut SquareIt   Assert AreEqual 25  cut SomeProperty     The fake instance is used as a stub because the Assert doesn t use fake at all   Example of a test where test class X is used as a mock   const pleaseReturn5   5  var fake   new FakeX pleaseReturn5   var cut   new ClassUnderTest fake    cut SquareIt   Assert AreEqual 25  fake SomeProperty     In this case the Assert checks a value on fake  making that fake a mock   Now  of course these examples are highly contrived  but I see great merit in this distinction  It makes you aware of how you are testing your stuff and where the dependencies of your test are   I agree with Osherove s that     from a pure maintainability perspective  in my tests using mocks creates more trouble than not using them  That has been my experience  but I   m always learning something new    Asserting against the fake is something you really want to avoid as it makes your tests highly dependent upon the implementation of a class that isn t the one under test at all  Which means that the tests for class ActualClassUnderTest can start breaking because the implementation for ClassUsedAsMock changed  And that sends up a foul smell to me  Tests for ActualClassUnderTest should preferably only break when ActualClassUnderTest is changed   I realize that writing asserts against the fake is a common practice  especially when you are a mockist type of TDD subscriber  I guess I am firmly with Martin Fowler in the classicist camp  See Martin Fowler s  Mocks aren t Stubs   and like Osherove avoid interaction testing  which can only be done by asserting against the fake  as much as possible   For fun reading on why you should avoid mocks as defined here  google for  fowler mockist classicist   You ll find a plethora of opinions

User · Answer

Stub  Fakes and Mocks have different meanings across different sources  I suggest you to introduce your team internal terms and agree upon their meaning   I think it is important to distinguish between two approaches   - behaviour validation  implies behaviour substitution   - end-state validation  implies behaviour emulation   Consider email sending in case of error  When doing behaviour validation - you check that method Send of IEmailSender was executed once  And you need to emulate return result of this method  return Id of the sent message  So you say   I expect that Send will be called  And I will just return dummy  or random  Id for any call   This is behaviour validation  emailSender Expect es  gt es Send anyThing   Return  subject body    gt   dummyId    When doing state validation you will need to create TestEmailSender that implements IEmailSender  And implement Send method - by saving input to some data structure that will be used for future state verification like array of some objects SentEmails and then it tests you will check that SentEmails contains expected email  This is state validation  Assert AreEqual 1  emailSender SentEmails Count   From my readings I understood that Behaviour validation usually called Mocks  And State validation usually called Stubs or Fakes

User · Answer

all of them are called Test Doubles and used to inject the dependencies that your test case needs.

Stub: It already has a predefined behavior to set your expectation for example, stub returns only the success case of your API response

A mock is a smarter stub. You verify your test passes through it. so you could make amock that return either the success or failure success depending on the condition could be changed in your test case.

User · Answer

Stub  Fakes and Mocks have different meanings across different sources  I suggest you to introduce your team internal terms and agree upon their meaning   I think it is important to distinguish between two approaches   - behaviour validation  implies behaviour substitution   - end-state validation  implies behaviour emulation   Consider email sending in case of error  When doing behaviour validation - you check that method Send of IEmailSender was executed once  And you need to emulate return result of this method  return Id of the sent message  So you say   I expect that Send will be called  And I will just return dummy  or random  Id for any call   This is behaviour validation  emailSender Expect es  gt es Send anyThing   Return  subject body    gt   dummyId    When doing state validation you will need to create TestEmailSender that implements IEmailSender  And implement Send method - by saving input to some data structure that will be used for future state verification like array of some objects SentEmails and then it tests you will check that SentEmails contains expected email  This is state validation  Assert AreEqual 1  emailSender SentEmails Count   From my readings I understood that Behaviour validation usually called Mocks  And State validation usually called Stubs or Fakes

User · Answer

It s a matter of making the tests expressive  I set expectations on a Mock if I want the test to describe a relationship between two objects  I stub return values if I m setting up a supporting object to get me to the interesting behaviour in the test

User · Answer

the thing that you assert on it is called a mock object and everything else that just helped the test run  is a stub

User · Answer

You can get some information   From Martin Fowler about Mock and Stub Fake objects actually have working implementations  but usually take some shortcut which makes them not suitable for production Stubs provide canned answers to calls made during the test  usually not responding at all to anything outside what s programmed in for the test  Stubs may also record information about calls  such as an email gateway stub that remembers the messages it  sent   or maybe only how many messages it  sent   Mocks are what we are talking about here  objects pre-programmed with expectations which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive  From xunitpattern  Fake  We acquire or build a very lightweight implementation of the same functionality as provided by a component that the SUT depends on and instruct the SUT to use it instead of the real  Stub   This implementation is configured to respond to calls from the SUT with the values  or exceptions  that will exercise the Untested Code  see Production Bugs on page X  within the SUT  A key indication for using a Test Stub is having Untested Code caused by the inability to control the indirect inputs of the SUT Mock Object that implements the same interface as an object on which the SUT  System Under Test  depends  We can use a Mock Object as an observation point when we need to do Behavior Verification to avoid having an Untested Requirement  see Production Bugs on page X  caused by an inability to observe side-effects of invoking methods on the SUT  Personally I try to simplify by using   Mock and Stub  I use Mock when it s an object that returns a value that is set to the tested class  I use Stub to mimic an Interface or Abstract class to be tested  In fact  it doesn t really matter what you call it  they are all classes that aren t used in production  and are used as utility classes for testing

User · Answer

stub and fake are objects in that they can vary their response based on input parameters  the main difference between them is that a Fake is closer to a real-world implementation than a stub  Stubs contain basically hard-coded responses to an expected request  Let see an example    public class MyUnitTest      Test  public void testConcatenate       StubDependency stubDependency   new StubDependency      int result   stubDependency toNumber  one    two      assertEquals  onetwo   result         public class StubDependency      public int toNumber string param      if  param       one          return 1        if  param       two          return 2             A mock is a step up from fakes and stubs  Mocks provide the same functionality as stubs but are more complex  They can have rules defined for them that dictate in what order methods on their API must be called  Most mocks can track how many times a method was called and can react based on that information  Mocks generally know the context of each call and can react differently in different situations  Because of this  mocks require some knowledge of the class they are mocking  a stub generally cannot track how many times a method was called or in what order a sequence of methods was called  A mock looks like   public class MockADependency     private int ShouldCallTwice   private boolean ShouldCallAtEnd   private boolean ShouldCallFirst    public int StringToInteger String s      if  s     abc        return 1        if  s     xyz        return 2        return 0       public void ShouldCallFirst       if   ShouldCallTwice  gt  0     ShouldCallAtEnd     throw new AssertionException  ShouldCallFirst not first thod called      ShouldCallFirst   true       public int ShouldCallTwice string s      if   ShouldCallFirst     throw new AssertionException  ShouldCallTwice called before ShouldCallFirst      if  ShouldCallAtEnd     throw new AssertionException  ShouldCallTwice called after ShouldCallAtEnd      if  ShouldCallTwice  gt   2     throw new AssertionException  ShouldCallTwice called more than twice      ShouldCallTwice      return StringToInteger s        public void ShouldCallAtEnd       if   ShouldCallFirst     throw new AssertionException  ShouldCallAtEnd called before ShouldCallFirst      if  ShouldCallTwice    2  throw new AssertionException  ShouldCallTwice not called twice      ShouldCallAtEnd   true

User · Answer

To illustrate the usage of stubs and mocks  I would like to also include an example based on Roy Osherove s  The Art of Unit Testing    Imagine  we have a LogAnalyzer application which has the sole functionality of printing logs  It not only needs to talk to a web service  but if the web service throws an error  LogAnalyzer has to log the error to a different external dependency  sending it by email to the web service administrator   Here   s the logic we   d like to test inside LogAnalyzer   if fileName Length lt 8     try         service LogError  Filename too short     fileName        catch  Exception e          email SendEmail  a   subject  e Message           How do you test that LogAnalyzer calls the email service correctly when the web service throws an exception  Here are the questions we   re faced with    How can we replace the web service  How can we simulate an exception from the web service so that we can test the call to the email service  How will we know that the email service was called correctly or at all    We can deal with the first two questions by using a stub for the web service  To solve the third problem  we can use a mock object for the email service   A fake is a generic term that can be used to describe either a stub or a mock In our test  we   ll have two fakes  One will be the email service mock  which we   ll use to verify that the correct parameters were sent to the email service  The other will be a stub that we   ll use to simulate an exception thrown from the web service  It   s a stub because we won   t be using the web service fake to verify the test result  only to make sure the test runs correctly  The email service is a mock because we   ll assert against it that it was called correctly    TestFixture  public class LogAnalyzer2Tests    Test   public void Analyze WebServiceThrows SendsEmail         StubService stubService   new StubService       stubService ToThrow  new Exception  fake exception       MockEmailService mockEmail   new MockEmailService        LogAnalyzer2 log   new LogAnalyzer2       log Service   stubService    log Email mockEmail     string tooShortFileName  abc ext      log Analyze tooShortFileName       Assert AreEqual  a  mockEmail To     MOCKING USED    Assert AreEqual  fake exception  mockEmail Body     MOCKING USED    Assert AreEqual  subject  mockEmail Subject

User · Answer

Unit testing - is an approach of testing where the unit class  method  is under control  Test double - is not a primary object from OOP world   It is a realisation which is created temporary to test  check or during development  Test doubles types   fake object is a real implementation of interface protocol  or an extend which is using an inheritance or other approaches which can be used to create - is dependency  Usually it is created by developer as a simplest solution to substitute some dependency  stub object is a bare object 0  nil and methods without logic  with extra state which is predefined by developer  to define returned values  Usually it is created by framework  mock object is very similar to stub object but the extra state is changed during program execution to check if something happened method was called    spy object is a real object with a  quot partial mocking quot   It means that you work with a non-double object except mocked behavior  dummy object is object which is necessary to run a test but no one variable or method of this object is not called    stub vs mock Martin Fowler said  There is a difference in that the stub uses state verification while the mock uses behavior verification    Mockito mock vs spy

User · Answer

You can get some information   From Martin Fowler about Mock and Stub Fake objects actually have working implementations  but usually take some shortcut which makes them not suitable for production Stubs provide canned answers to calls made during the test  usually not responding at all to anything outside what s programmed in for the test  Stubs may also record information about calls  such as an email gateway stub that remembers the messages it  sent   or maybe only how many messages it  sent   Mocks are what we are talking about here  objects pre-programmed with expectations which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive  From xunitpattern  Fake  We acquire or build a very lightweight implementation of the same functionality as provided by a component that the SUT depends on and instruct the SUT to use it instead of the real  Stub   This implementation is configured to respond to calls from the SUT with the values  or exceptions  that will exercise the Untested Code  see Production Bugs on page X  within the SUT  A key indication for using a Test Stub is having Untested Code caused by the inability to control the indirect inputs of the SUT Mock Object that implements the same interface as an object on which the SUT  System Under Test  depends  We can use a Mock Object as an observation point when we need to do Behavior Verification to avoid having an Untested Requirement  see Production Bugs on page X  caused by an inability to observe side-effects of invoking methods on the SUT  Personally I try to simplify by using   Mock and Stub  I use Mock when it s an object that returns a value that is set to the tested class  I use Stub to mimic an Interface or Abstract class to be tested  In fact  it doesn t really matter what you call it  they are all classes that aren t used in production  and are used as utility classes for testing

User · Answer

I am surprised that this question has been around for so long and nobody has as yet provided an answer based on Roy Osherove s  The Art of Unit Testing    In  3 1 Introducing stubs  defines a stub as      A stub is a controllable replacement for an existing dependency    or collaborator  in the system  By using a stub  you can test your code without   dealing with the dependency directly    And defines the difference between stubs and mocks as      The main thing to remember about mocks versus stubs is that mocks are just like stubs  but you assert against the mock object  whereas you do not assert against a stub    Fake is just the name used for both stubs and mocks  For example when you don t care about the distinction between stubs and mocks   The way Osherove s distinguishes between stubs and mocks  means that any class used as a fake for testing can be both a stub or a mock  Which it is for a specific test depends entirely on how you write the checks in your test     When your test checks values in the class under test  or actually anywhere but the fake  the fake was used as a stub  It just provided values for the class under test to use  either directly through values returned by calls on it or indirectly through causing side effects  in some state  as a result of calls on it  When your test checks values of the fake  it was used as a mock    Example of a test where class FakeX is used as a stub   const pleaseReturn5   5  var fake   new FakeX pleaseReturn5   var cut   new ClassUnderTest fake    cut SquareIt   Assert AreEqual 25  cut SomeProperty     The fake instance is used as a stub because the Assert doesn t use fake at all   Example of a test where test class X is used as a mock   const pleaseReturn5   5  var fake   new FakeX pleaseReturn5   var cut   new ClassUnderTest fake    cut SquareIt   Assert AreEqual 25  fake SomeProperty     In this case the Assert checks a value on fake  making that fake a mock   Now  of course these examples are highly contrived  but I see great merit in this distinction  It makes you aware of how you are testing your stuff and where the dependencies of your test are   I agree with Osherove s that     from a pure maintainability perspective  in my tests using mocks creates more trouble than not using them  That has been my experience  but I   m always learning something new    Asserting against the fake is something you really want to avoid as it makes your tests highly dependent upon the implementation of a class that isn t the one under test at all  Which means that the tests for class ActualClassUnderTest can start breaking because the implementation for ClassUsedAsMock changed  And that sends up a foul smell to me  Tests for ActualClassUnderTest should preferably only break when ActualClassUnderTest is changed   I realize that writing asserts against the fake is a common practice  especially when you are a mockist type of TDD subscriber  I guess I am firmly with Martin Fowler in the classicist camp  See Martin Fowler s  Mocks aren t Stubs   and like Osherove avoid interaction testing  which can only be done by asserting against the fake  as much as possible   For fun reading on why you should avoid mocks as defined here  google for  fowler mockist classicist   You ll find a plethora of opinions

User · Answer

You can get some information   From Martin Fowler about Mock and Stub Fake objects actually have working implementations  but usually take some shortcut which makes them not suitable for production Stubs provide canned answers to calls made during the test  usually not responding at all to anything outside what s programmed in for the test  Stubs may also record information about calls  such as an email gateway stub that remembers the messages it  sent   or maybe only how many messages it  sent   Mocks are what we are talking about here  objects pre-programmed with expectations which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive  From xunitpattern  Fake  We acquire or build a very lightweight implementation of the same functionality as provided by a component that the SUT depends on and instruct the SUT to use it instead of the real  Stub   This implementation is configured to respond to calls from the SUT with the values  or exceptions  that will exercise the Untested Code  see Production Bugs on page X  within the SUT  A key indication for using a Test Stub is having Untested Code caused by the inability to control the indirect inputs of the SUT Mock Object that implements the same interface as an object on which the SUT  System Under Test  depends  We can use a Mock Object as an observation point when we need to do Behavior Verification to avoid having an Untested Requirement  see Production Bugs on page X  caused by an inability to observe side-effects of invoking methods on the SUT  Personally I try to simplify by using   Mock and Stub  I use Mock when it s an object that returns a value that is set to the tested class  I use Stub to mimic an Interface or Abstract class to be tested  In fact  it doesn t really matter what you call it  they are all classes that aren t used in production  and are used as utility classes for testing

User · Answer

the thing that you assert on it is called a mock object and everything else that just helped the test run  is a stub

User · Answer

To illustrate the usage of stubs and mocks  I would like to also include an example based on Roy Osherove s  The Art of Unit Testing    Imagine  we have a LogAnalyzer application which has the sole functionality of printing logs  It not only needs to talk to a web service  but if the web service throws an error  LogAnalyzer has to log the error to a different external dependency  sending it by email to the web service administrator   Here   s the logic we   d like to test inside LogAnalyzer   if fileName Length lt 8     try         service LogError  Filename too short     fileName        catch  Exception e          email SendEmail  a   subject  e Message           How do you test that LogAnalyzer calls the email service correctly when the web service throws an exception  Here are the questions we   re faced with    How can we replace the web service  How can we simulate an exception from the web service so that we can test the call to the email service  How will we know that the email service was called correctly or at all    We can deal with the first two questions by using a stub for the web service  To solve the third problem  we can use a mock object for the email service   A fake is a generic term that can be used to describe either a stub or a mock In our test  we   ll have two fakes  One will be the email service mock  which we   ll use to verify that the correct parameters were sent to the email service  The other will be a stub that we   ll use to simulate an exception thrown from the web service  It   s a stub because we won   t be using the web service fake to verify the test result  only to make sure the test runs correctly  The email service is a mock because we   ll assert against it that it was called correctly    TestFixture  public class LogAnalyzer2Tests    Test   public void Analyze WebServiceThrows SendsEmail         StubService stubService   new StubService       stubService ToThrow  new Exception  fake exception       MockEmailService mockEmail   new MockEmailService        LogAnalyzer2 log   new LogAnalyzer2       log Service   stubService    log Email mockEmail     string tooShortFileName  abc ext      log Analyze tooShortFileName       Assert AreEqual  a  mockEmail To     MOCKING USED    Assert AreEqual  fake exception  mockEmail Body     MOCKING USED    Assert AreEqual  subject  mockEmail Subject

User · Answer

stub and fake are objects in that they can vary their response based on input parameters  the main difference between them is that a Fake is closer to a real-world implementation than a stub  Stubs contain basically hard-coded responses to an expected request  Let see an example    public class MyUnitTest      Test  public void testConcatenate       StubDependency stubDependency   new StubDependency      int result   stubDependency toNumber  one    two      assertEquals  onetwo   result         public class StubDependency      public int toNumber string param      if  param       one          return 1        if  param       two          return 2             A mock is a step up from fakes and stubs  Mocks provide the same functionality as stubs but are more complex  They can have rules defined for them that dictate in what order methods on their API must be called  Most mocks can track how many times a method was called and can react based on that information  Mocks generally know the context of each call and can react differently in different situations  Because of this  mocks require some knowledge of the class they are mocking  a stub generally cannot track how many times a method was called or in what order a sequence of methods was called  A mock looks like   public class MockADependency     private int ShouldCallTwice   private boolean ShouldCallAtEnd   private boolean ShouldCallFirst    public int StringToInteger String s      if  s     abc        return 1        if  s     xyz        return 2        return 0       public void ShouldCallFirst       if   ShouldCallTwice  gt  0     ShouldCallAtEnd     throw new AssertionException  ShouldCallFirst not first thod called      ShouldCallFirst   true       public int ShouldCallTwice string s      if   ShouldCallFirst     throw new AssertionException  ShouldCallTwice called before ShouldCallFirst      if  ShouldCallAtEnd     throw new AssertionException  ShouldCallTwice called after ShouldCallAtEnd      if  ShouldCallTwice  gt   2     throw new AssertionException  ShouldCallTwice called more than twice      ShouldCallTwice      return StringToInteger s        public void ShouldCallAtEnd       if   ShouldCallFirst     throw new AssertionException  ShouldCallAtEnd called before ShouldCallFirst      if  ShouldCallTwice    2  throw new AssertionException  ShouldCallTwice not called twice      ShouldCallAtEnd   true

User · Answer

You can get some information   From Martin Fowler about Mock and Stub Fake objects actually have working implementations  but usually take some shortcut which makes them not suitable for production Stubs provide canned answers to calls made during the test  usually not responding at all to anything outside what s programmed in for the test  Stubs may also record information about calls  such as an email gateway stub that remembers the messages it  sent   or maybe only how many messages it  sent   Mocks are what we are talking about here  objects pre-programmed with expectations which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive  From xunitpattern  Fake  We acquire or build a very lightweight implementation of the same functionality as provided by a component that the SUT depends on and instruct the SUT to use it instead of the real  Stub   This implementation is configured to respond to calls from the SUT with the values  or exceptions  that will exercise the Untested Code  see Production Bugs on page X  within the SUT  A key indication for using a Test Stub is having Untested Code caused by the inability to control the indirect inputs of the SUT Mock Object that implements the same interface as an object on which the SUT  System Under Test  depends  We can use a Mock Object as an observation point when we need to do Behavior Verification to avoid having an Untested Requirement  see Production Bugs on page X  caused by an inability to observe side-effects of invoking methods on the SUT  Personally I try to simplify by using   Mock and Stub  I use Mock when it s an object that returns a value that is set to the tested class  I use Stub to mimic an Interface or Abstract class to be tested  In fact  it doesn t really matter what you call it  they are all classes that aren t used in production  and are used as utility classes for testing

User · Answer

If you are familiar with Arrange-Act-Assert  then one way of explaining the difference between stub and mock that might be useful for you  is that stubs belong to the arrange section  as they are for arranging input state  and mocks belong to the assert section as they are for asserting results against   Dummies don t do anything  They are just for filling up parameter lists  so that you don t get undefined or null errors  They also exist to satisfy the type checker in strictly typed languages  so that you can be allowed to compile and run

User · Answer

It s a matter of making the tests expressive  I set expectations on a Mock if I want the test to describe a relationship between two objects  I stub return values if I m setting up a supporting object to get me to the interesting behaviour in the test

[unit-testing] What's the difference between faking, mocking, and stubbing?

Examples related to unit-testing

Examples related to mocking

Examples related to language-agnostic

Examples related to terminology

Examples related to definition