Talk:Test double
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
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.
- fix the problem and remote the template. CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Merge "Mock object" to test double
[edit]Most of the article on mock objects (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. My opinion is that the article mock object is overall quite better than test double, so the merge should probably take most of its content from there and replace content here. The article mock object may remain as a redirect (which would acknowledge the fact that there is some some residual uncertainty in terminology) or be a shorter article on the specifics of mocks proper. Moongateclimber (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Moongateclimber: +1 for moving some of the content relevant to test double here. +1 for shortening mock object artcile. I would keep the mock object page though as is defines category of a test double that is different to other categories (stubs, ...). "Mocks are what we are talking about here: objects pre-programmed with expectations which form a specification of the calls they are expected to receive."[1] Wojtek-tp (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree to keep both articles but reduce duplication. Stevebroshar (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Deevincentday: I vote for keeping the mock object page. The reason being that the developers I work with talk about mocks and mocking not test doubles. I came to wikipedia searching for information relating to mocks and mocking and might not have found anything if the Mock object page did not exist. Deevincentday (talk)
- Just because there are two terms for the same thing is not a good reason to have two pages. I don't know how, but it seems you can have redirects. One term can point to the page with the other name. ... but I don't think test double is the same as mock. One type of test double is a mock ... but from what I just read, and it makes sense, can use a mock for non-testing purposes. So, a mock is only a test double based on context. Stevebroshar (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)