Is it better to test with mock or without? - testing

Question

A method can be tested either with mock object or without. I prefer the solution without mock when they are not necessary because:
They make tests more difficult to understand.
After refactoring it is a pain to fix junit tests if they have been implemented with mocks.
But I would like to ask your opinion. Here the method under test:
public class OndemandBuilder {
....
private LinksBuilder linksBuilder;
....
public OndemandBuilder buildLink(String pid) {
broadcastOfBuilder = new LinksBuilder(pipsBeanFactory);
broadcastOfBuilder.type(XXX).pid(pid);
return this;
}
Test with mocks:
#Test
public void testbuildLink() throws Exception {
String type = "XXX";
String pid = "test_pid";
LinksBuilder linkBuilder = mock(LinksBuilder.class);
given(linkBuilder.type(type)).willReturn(linkBuilder);
//builderFactory replace the new call in order to mock it
given(builderFactory.createLinksBuilder(pipsBeanFactory)).willReturn(linkBuilder);
OndemandBuilder returnedBuilder = builder.buildLink(pid);
assertEquals(builder, returnedBuilder); //they point to the same obj
verify(linkBuilder, times(1)).type(type);
verify(linkBuilder, times(1)).pid(pid);
verifyNoMoreInteractions(linkBuilder);
}
The returnedBuilder obj within the method buildLink is 'this' that means that builder and returnedBuilder can't be different because they point to the same object in memory so the assertEquals is not really testing that it contains the expected field set by the method buildLink (which is the pid).
I have changed that test as below, without using mocks. The below test asserts what we want to test which is that the builder contains a LinkBuilder not null and the LinkBuilder pid is the one expected.
#Test
public void testbuildLink() throws Exception {
String pid = "test_pid";
OndemandBuilder returnedBuilder = builder.buildLink(pid);
assertNotNull(returnedBuilder.getLinkBuilder());
assertEquals(pid, returnedBuilder.getLinkBuilder().getPid());
}
I wouldn't use mock unless they are necessary, but I wonder if this makes sense or I misunderstand the mock way of testing.

Answer 1

Mocking is a very powerful tool when writing unit tests, in a nut shell where you have dependencies between classes, and you want to test one class that depends on another, you can use mock objects to limit the scope of your tests so that you are only testing the code in the class that you want to test, and not those classes it depends on. There is no point me explaining further, I would highly recommend you read the brilliant Martin Fowler work Mocks Aren't Stubs for a full introduction into the topic.
In your example, the test without mocks is definitely cleaner, but you will notice that your test exercises code in both the OndemandBuilder and LinksBuilder classes. It may be that this is what you want to do, but the 'problem' here is that should the test fail, it could be due to issues in either of those two classes. In your case, because the code in OndemandBuilder.buildLink is minimal, I would say your approach is OK. However, if the logic in this function was more complex, then I would suggest that you would want to unit test this method in a way that didn't depend on the behavior of the LinksBuilder.type method. This is where mock objects can help you.
Lets say we do want to test OndemandBuilder.buildLink independent of the LinksBuilder implementation. To do this, we want to be able to replace the linksBuilder object in OndemandBuilder with a mock object - by doing this we can precisely control what is returned by calls to this mock object, breaking the dependency on the implementation of LinksBuilder. This is where the technique Dependency Injection can help you - the example below shows how we could modify OndemandBuilder to allow linksBuilder to be replaced with a mock object (by injecting the dependency in the constructor):
public class OndemandBuilder {
....
private LinksBuilder linksBuilder;
....
public class OndemandBuilder(LinksBuilder linksBuilder) {
this.linksBuilder = linksBuilder;
}
public OndemandBuilder buildLink(String pid) {
broadcastOfBuilder = new LinksBuilder(pipsBeanFactory);
broadcastOfBuilder.type(XXX).pid(pid);
return this;
}
}
Now, in your test, when you create your OndemandBuilder object, you can create a mock version of LinksBuilder, pass it into the constructor, and control how this behaves for the purpose of your test. By using mock objects and dependency injection, you can now properly unit test OndemandBuilder independent of the LinksBuilder implementation.
Hope this helps.

Answer 2

It all dependent upon what you understand by UNIT testing.
Because when you are trying to unit test a class , it means you are not worried about the underlying system/interface. You are assuming they are working correctly hence you just mock them. And when i say you are ASSUMING means you are unit testing the underlying interface separately.
So when you are writing your JUnits without mocks essentially you are doing a system or an integration test.
But to answer your question both ways have their advantages/disadvantages and ideally a system should have both.