Talk:Test double: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:18, 22 April 2017

I'm not sure of the policies for removing templates such as "lead too short." I left it in place, but I hope my changes will allow it to be removed.

Merge to test double

Most of the article (including the whole incipit) is really about test doubles and not mocks. Much of the content in fact duplicates test double, including the discussion of the terminology issues around the misuse of the word "mock" as a pseudonym for "test double". Note that there are specific arguments (cited both in the article(s) and in referenced resources) to not use the work "mock" as a pseudonym for "test double", when speaking formally (as should be the case here); see for example Mocks Aren't Stubs by Uncle Bob Martin. Also note that while the terminology of test doubles has been uncertain for a few years, the consensus on the use of specific terms is rapidly growing. It is very unusual nowadays to find an online article using "mocks" in a different sense than suggested by Martin and others. Moongateclimber (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ==Merge to test double==
-Most of the article (including the whole incipit) is really about [[test double]]s and not mocks. Much of the content in fact duplicates [[test double]], including the discussion of the terminology issues around the misuse of the word "mock" as a pseudonym for "test double". Note that there are specific arguments (cited both in the article(s) and in referenced resources) to ''not'' use the work "mock" as a pseudonym for "test double", when speaking formally (as should be the case here); see for example ''[https://martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html Mocks Aren't Stubs]'' by Uncle Bob Martin. Also note that while the terminology of test doubles has been uncertain for a few years, the consensus on the use of specific terms is rapidly growing. It will be very hard to impossible nowadays to find an online article using "mocks" in a different sense than suggested by Martin and others.
+Most of the article (including the whole incipit) is really about [[test double]]s and not mocks. Much of the content in fact duplicates [[test double]], including the discussion of the terminology issues around the misuse of the word "mock" as a pseudonym for "test double". Note that there are specific arguments (cited both in the article(s) and in referenced resources) to ''not'' use the work "mock" as a pseudonym for "test double", when speaking formally (as should be the case here); see for example ''[https://martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html Mocks Aren't Stubs]'' by Uncle Bob Martin. Also note that while the terminology of test doubles has been uncertain for a few years, the consensus on the use of specific terms is rapidly growing. It is very unusual nowadays to find an online article using "mocks" in a different sense than suggested by Martin and others.
 [[User:Moongateclimber|Moongateclimber]] ([[User talk:Moongateclimber|talk]]) 20:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)