maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthew Adams <matt...@matthewadams.me>
Subject Re: maven-failsafe-plugin: what is it actually intended for?
Date Thu, 14 Nov 2013 22:30:38 GMT
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Ron Wheeler <
rwheeler@artifact-software.com> wrote:

> On 13/11/2013 11:16 AM, Matthew Adams wrote:
>
>> I don't think timing should be the heuristic here.  The fact that unit
>> tests take less is a result of the fact that what you're testing, aka the
>> "unit", tends to be small.  After all, a unit test should test a "unit".
>>
> So what is your definition?
>
"A unit test is test code that tests a unit in isolation."  It's
intentionally ambiguous, because a unit is relative and may differ.


>
>> An integration test, then, if I were defining it strictly, would be
>> anything that's not a unit test.  In practice, this usually means
>> replacing
>> any mocks and/or stubs in your unit tests with the real implementations,
>> plus using any other supporting infrastructure, like databases, dependency
>> injection contexts, etc.
>>
> Not sure that this is true for all integration tests. You may be able to
> test the integration of two projects (a web service and a database access
> layer) while still using mocks and stubs (mock of a database persistence
> layer).
> People frequently test with Jetty when the final project will run on
> Tomcat.
> It all depends on what part of the system integration is being tested.
>

I didn't say it had to be what's used in production.  The key difference is
that you're using _something_, in addition to the unit.

-matthew

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message