On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Kumar McMillan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kumar.mcmillan@gmail.com">kumar.mcmillan@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi all<br>
(sorry about the x-post ye Thunderbird users)<br>
<br>
I'm excited to announced the release of Fudge, a Python module for<br>
replacing real objects with fakes (mocks, stubs, etc) while testing.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://farmdev.com/projects/fudge/" target="_blank">http://farmdev.com/projects/fudge/</a><br>
<a href="http://pypi.python.org/pypi/fudge" target="_blank">http://pypi.python.org/pypi/fudge</a><br>
<br>
Fudge started when a co-worker introduced me to Mocha [1], a mocking<br>
framework for Ruby and a simpler version of jMock (Java). More<br>
rambling about all that is here:<br>
<a href="http://farmdev.com/thoughts/70/fudge-another-python-mock-framework/" target="_blank">http://farmdev.com/thoughts/70/fudge-another-python-mock-framework/</a><br>
<br>
Yes, I know it's yet another mock framework. I talk about how Fudge<br>
compares to the others here:<br>
<a href="http://farmdev.com/projects/fudge/why-fudge.html" target="_blank">http://farmdev.com/projects/fudge/why-fudge.html</a><br>
</blockquote><div><br>In the latest release of minimock (1.1) instead of simply logging everything to stdout, it can write to a MockTracker, and you can use it from unittest.<br><br>It doesn't deal with expectations directly, but I'm not sure what that would add over checking that expectations after the run? I guess that's the same criticism as for mock?<br>
<br>Looking at pyMock, I wonder if the clever use of sys.settrace could be used for some not-quite-mocking tests, especially applying tests to code that wasn't written to be testable.<br></div></div><br>-- <br>Ian Bicking | <a href="http://blog.ianbicking.org">http://blog.ianbicking.org</a><br>