Re: Unit Testing Frameworks (was Re: Singletons)

From:

Balog Pal <pasa@lib.hu>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++.moderated

Date:

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:57:15 -0800 (PST)

Message-ID:

<kdskel$7dt$1@news.ett.com.ua>

On 1/24/2013 8:23 AM, Tobias M??ller wrote:

Ian Collins <ian-news@this.is.invalid> wrote:

I don't like making extra work for myself. Maybe this stems form most
of my work being one layer above the operating system APIs, so I end up
mocking (often an automated process) a significant number of system
libraries.

I'm still waiting (but not holding my breath) for a real world example
of why it's much easier to substitute the real code with the mock when
using DI.

System calls are a good example. They are not really singletons, but the
same problems apply.

And this leads to full collapse of the singleton-bashing and DI-promotion.

As following the arguments we should abandon the use of most free
functions ans function-based APIs. Directly. Instead fill all our
classes with pointers to those functions and use only those pointers for
calls.

So consider a unit test with where malloc or new deliberately fails at some
point.
In the case of not using DI (read "Allocators") the unittest itself cannot
dynamically allocate memory without failing or having side effects on the
actual test.

Well, a plenty of people already demonstrated that this is NOT TRUE, but
the rest just keep repeating the false claim. :(

--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]