Skip to main content

Humor: Metamocking

There are a lot of very powerful concepts in the world of software engineering that have "meta" in their name. Just consider metaprogramming and metaclasses. I've spent some time thinking about what "metamocking" might look like. What would it mean to mock a mock?

First, some background. Let's say I have the following function (written in Dart):

void helloWorld() {
  print("Hello, World!");
}

How do I know if it works correctly? Since it doesn't return anything, but rather changes the state of the outside world (specifically, the stuff printed to my terminal), it's not so easy to test.

Mocking to the rescue! I need to add a bit of dependency injection so that the test can pass in its own code for printing and so that I can mock things properly:

library hello_world;

const defaultPrinter = const Printer();

class Printer {
  const Printer();
  printValue(String s) => print(s);
}

void helloWorld({Printer printer: defaultPrinter}) {
  printer.printValue("Hello, World!");
}

main() {
  helloWorld();
}

Now, let's write a unittest that makes use of mocking to test the helloWorld function:

import 'package:unittest/unittest.dart';

import 'hello_world.dart';

class PrinterSpy extends Mock implements Printer {
  PrinterSpy() {
    when(callsTo('printValue', "Hello, World!")).thenReturn(true);
  }
}

void main() {
  group('helloWorld', () {
    test('prints "Hello, world!"', () {
      var printerSpy = new PrinterSpy();
      helloWorld(printer: printerSpy);
      printerSpy.getLogs(callsTo('printValue'))
        .verify(happenedExactly(1))
        .verify(alwaysReturned(true));
    });
  });
}

Woah! That's a lot of code to test such a simple function! I feel pretty comfortable about "class PrinterSpy" because it's pretty short, but I'm really worried about the test itself. How do I know that the test itself is using printerSpy correctly?

Once again, mocking to the rescue! Let me start by pulling out the heart of the test into a separate function so that I can make use of dependency injection again:

import 'package:unittest/unittest.dart';

import 'hello_world.dart';

class PrinterSpy extends Mock implements Printer {
  PrinterSpy() {
    when(callsTo('printValue', "Hello, World!")).thenReturn(true);
  }
}

void testPrintsHelloWorld({PrinterSpy printerSpy}) {
  if (!?printerSpy) {  
    printerSpy = new PrinterSpy();
  }
  helloWorld(printer: printerSpy);
  printerSpy.getLogs(callsTo('printValue'))
    ..verify(happenedExactly(1))
    ..verify(alwaysReturned(true));
}

void main() {
  group('helloWorld', () {
    test('prints "Hello, world!"', () => testPrintsHelloWorld());
  });
}

Now, I can create a mock for my mock to make sure that I wrote it correctly. Unfortunately, this is fairly challenging since you can't use a Mock to mock a method named getLogs since Mock has its own definition of that function. Nonetheless:

import 'package:unittest/unittest.dart';

import 'hello_world.dart';

class PrinterSpy extends Mock implements Printer {
  PrinterSpy() {
    when(callsTo('printValue', "Hello, World!")).thenReturn(true);
  }
}

void testPrintsHelloWorld({PrinterSpy printerSpy}) {
  if (!?printerSpy) {  
    printerSpy = new PrinterSpy();
  }
  helloWorld(printer: printerSpy);
  printerSpy.getLogs(callsTo('printValue'))
    ..verify(happenedExactly(1))
    ..verify(alwaysReturned(true));
}

class PrinterSpySpy extends PrinterSpy {
  LogEntryList getLogs([CallMatcher logFilter,
                        Matcher actionMatcher,
                        bool destructive = false]) {
    log.add(new LogEntry(null, "getLogs",
        [logFilter, actionMatcher, destructive], null));
    return super.getLogs(logFilter, actionMatcher, destructive);
  }
}

void testTestPrintsHelloWorld() {
  var printerSpySpy = new PrinterSpySpy();
  testPrintsHelloWorld(printerSpy: printerSpySpy);
  printerSpySpy.getLogs(callsTo('getLogs')).verify(happenedExactly(2));

  // Verifying the number of times verify is called is left as an
  // exercise for the reader.
}

void main() {
  group('helloWorld', () {
    test('prints "Hello, world!"', () => testPrintsHelloWorld());
  });
  
  group('testPrintsHelloWorld', () {
    test('uses printerSpy correctly', () => testTestPrintsHelloWorld());      
  });
}

As you can see, I was able to verify that my mock executed correctly. Metamocking is certainly an interesting, albeit advanced technique for software engineers who consider themselves true experts in the art of software testing.

However, I should mention that it does have a couple flaws. For instance, who's to say that the mock for my mock is itself correct? In theory, running a mock should serve to test the mock, but one can never be too sure! Furthermore, despite the fact that I've written a lot of test code, I have no idea if helloWorld will truly print "Hello, World!" to my terminal since I never tested the actual print function. Mocking is like that sometimes ;)

At this point, I should probably wrap up. I'll finish with a proper definition of metamocking. The astute reader may have guessed by now that metamocking (i.e. mock mocking) actually has two meanings:

  • To create mock objects in order to test your mock objects.
  • To mock (i.e. poke fun at) those people who rely on mocking too much :)

My next blog post will be on metametamocking. In it, I plan on mocking this blog post and explaining that it was just a hopelessly bad and overly elaborate pun ;)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ubuntu 20.04 on a 2015 15" MacBook Pro

I decided to give Ubuntu 20.04 a try on my 2015 15" MacBook Pro. I didn't actually install it; I just live booted from a USB thumb drive which was enough to try out everything I wanted. In summary, it's not perfect, and issues with my camera would prevent me from switching, but given the right hardware, I think it's a really viable option. The first thing I wanted to try was what would happen if I plugged in a non-HiDPI screen given that my laptop has a HiDPI screen. Without sub-pixel scaling, whatever scale rate I picked for one screen would apply to the other. However, once I turned on sub-pixel scaling, I was able to pick different scale rates for the internal and external displays. That looked ok. I tried plugging in and unplugging multiple times, and it didn't crash. I doubt it'd work with my Thunderbolt display at work, but it worked fine for my HDMI displays at home. I even plugged it into my TV, and it stuck to the 100% scaling I picked for the othe

ERNOS: Erlang Networked Operating System

I've been reading Dreaming in Code lately, and I really like it. If you're not a dreamer, you may safely skip the rest of this post ;) In Chapter 10, "Engineers and Artists", Alan Kay, John Backus, and Jaron Lanier really got me thinking. I've also been thinking a lot about Minix 3 , Erlang , and the original Lisp machine . The ideas are beginning to synthesize into something cohesive--more than just the sum of their parts. Now, I'm sure that many of these ideas have already been envisioned within Tunes.org , LLVM , Microsoft's Singularity project, or in some other place that I haven't managed to discover or fully read, but I'm going to blog them anyway. Rather than wax philosophical, let me just dump out some ideas: Start with Minix 3. It's a new microkernel, and it's meant for real use, unlike the original Minix. "This new OS is extremely small, with the part that runs in kernel mode under 4000 lines of executable code.&quo

Haskell or Erlang?

I've coded in both Erlang and Haskell. Erlang is practical, efficient, and useful. It's got a wonderful niche in the distributed world, and it has some real success stories such as CouchDB and jabber.org. Haskell is elegant and beautiful. It's been successful in various programming language competitions. I have some experience in both, but I'm thinking it's time to really commit to learning one of them on a professional level. They both have good books out now, and it's probably time I read one of those books cover to cover. My question is which? Back in 2000, Perl had established a real niche for systems administration, CGI, and text processing. The syntax wasn't exactly beautiful (unless you're into that sort of thing), but it was popular and mature. Python hadn't really become popular, nor did it really have a strong niche (at least as far as I could see). I went with Python because of its elegance, but since then, I've coded both p