That's actually a very interesting idea ... I can see implementing additional methods on RegistryBuilder that would allow you to supply pre-built (i.e., mock) implementations of various services, for the express purpose of testing.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Adriaan Joubert <adriaan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > We are using T5 IOC in a standalone application and it is great. Most > tests we can implement with a few mock classes and instantiating an > instance of the implementation of a service. There are however cases > where it is easier to use the IOC registry to stitch things together, > but only replace some services with mocks (or a suitably configured > local instance of a service). Ideally I want to use existing AppModule > configuration modules and only extend with a test module. > > My problem is how to get the registry to return my mock objects when > asked for a specific service. It feels like a problem that probably > has a simple solution. > > When using a standalone test module, I've managed to write mock > instances into static fields in the TestAppModule, and then return > them from ServiceBuilder methods. This works, but is laborious and > very ugly. > > I spent some time picking testify apart, which is great to learn from. > However as far as I can see the dependency injector completely ignores > the IOC registry and intervenes by injecting objects from its own > pool. This has the advantage that it can be initialised after the > registry has been started. This is great, but we only use constructor > injection, so I don't think this is going to work for us. > > My next thought is to write the test class into a field in my > TestAppModule before starting up the registry. I imagine I can then > use a ServiceOverride configuration method to pick out the mock > objects I want to use, and provide a custom object locator to return > these for specific services. > > This is still quite ugly and does not deal with the problem of how to > handle the situation where objects are recreated in a setup method for > every test run. > > So I thought I'd ask before spending more time on this. Anybody have any > ideas? > > Thanks, > > Adriaan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org > > -- Howard M. Lewis Ship Creator of Apache Tapestry The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast! (971) 678-5210 http://howardlewisship.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
