You can mock it using PowerMock in combination with Mockito: On top of your class: @RunWith(PowerMockRunner.class) @PrepareForTest({ClassThatCallsTheCalendar.class}) The key to success is that you have to put the class where you use Calendar in PrepareForTest instead of Calendar itself because it is a system class. (I personally had to search a lot before I found … Read more
Ninject is Dependency Injection for .NET. RhinoMocks and Moq are both mocking frameworks. Now both have nothing to do with each other. I really had trouble understanding both so here I go trying to explain. Dependency Injection: is an implementation (lets call it) of Inversion of Control. You don’t confuse the two. You are taking … Read more
Yes, with a simple refactoring. Create a zSomeFunc variable of function type, initialized with z.SomeFunc, and have your package call that instead of z.SomeFunc(): var zSomeFunc = z.SomeFunc func abc() { // … v := zSomeFunc() // … } In tests you may assign another function to zSomeFunc, one that is defined in tests, and … Read more
There’s a very nice mocking library for Kotlin – Mockk, which allows you to mock objects, the exact same way you’re desiring. As of its documentation: Objects can be transformed to mocks following way: object MockObj { fun add(a: Int, b: Int) = a + b } mockkObject(MockObj) // aplies mocking to an Object assertEquals(3, … Read more
It is in fact a little strange that the library has a blank page about end-user unit testing, while targeting user-friendliness and ease of use. There’s however an easy-to-use library by Dropbox, unsurprisingly called responses. Here is its intro post. It says they’ve failed to employ httpretty, while stating no reason of the fail, and … Read more
How to mock specific methods but not all of them in Rust? As you have already learned, you cannot replace methods on a type. The only thing you can do is move the methods to a trait and then provide production and test-specific implementations of that trait. How you structure the trait determines the granularity … Read more
I would suggest you wrap the back-end function speed_control::increase in some trait: trait SpeedControlBackend { fn increase(); } struct RealSpeedControl; impl SpeedControlBackend for RealSpeedControl { fn increase() { speed_control::increase(); } } struct MockSpeedControl; impl SpeedControlBackend for MockSpeedControl { fn increase() { println!(“MockSpeedControl::increase called”); } } trait SpeedControl { fn other_function(&self) -> Result<(), ()>; } struct … Read more
It means you will have to templatize your production code. Using your example: CSumWind class definition: class CSumWnd : public CBaseWnd { private: bool MethodA() }; Mocked CSumWnd class definition: class MockCSumWnd : public CBaseWnd { private: MOCK_METHOD(MethodA, bool()); }; Production class which have to be tested with mocked class CSumWind. Now it becomes templated … Read more
The mock_open() object does indeed not implement iteration. If you are not using the file object as a context manager, you could use: m = unittest.mock.MagicMock(name=”open”, spec=open) m.return_value = iter(self.TEST_TEXT) with unittest.mock.patch(‘builtins.open’, m): Now open() returns an iterator, something that can be directly iterated over just like a file object can be, and it’ll also … Read more
The problem is that you just overwrite a property of the window object. And if you can do that, the browser can do that as well. So mocking a function or property of a global object that everyone can access isn’t a good idea in general, because you can never be sure that your changes … Read more