Re:Mocks Aren't Stubs (2007)
by dpark on Monday November 14, 2016 @11:10PM
(#12955525)
My feeling after reading your doc is that "mock" is an ill-defined term and asserting the specific meaning here is just prescriptive linguism.
Not only does your own doc agree that in common usage, "mock" is a generic term for any test double, your docs also assert that a "partial mock" is "any actual object which has been wrapped or changed to provide artificial responses to some methods but not others". So by their "precise" definitions, a "partial mock" is actually not a partial "mock". Come on.
Not only does your own doc agree that in common usage, "mock" is a generic term for any test double, your docs also assert that a "partial mock" is "any actual object which has been wrapped or changed to provide artificial responses to some methods but not others". So by their "precise" definitions, a "partial mock" is actually not a partial "mock". Come on.