<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Clearing up the Mock confusion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2008/03/14/clearing-up-the-mock-confusion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2008/03/14/clearing-up-the-mock-confusion/</link>
	<description>Strong opinions, weakly held</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 05:19:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Freeman</title>
		<link>http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2008/03/14/clearing-up-the-mock-confusion/#comment-266</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Freeman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:59:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2008/03/13/clearing-up-the-mock-confusion.aspx#comment-266</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re right about not setting too many expectations in a test, and I like the metaphor about brand names.

It&#039;s really important to break through the record/replay concept, even though that&#039;s how it&#039;s expressed in Rhino. It puts too much emphasis on shadowing the implementation of the object under test, rather than describing its relationship with its neighbours, and the result is usually brittle.

I try to think of interaction tests as saying: I have this object, to perform this action it will need the following services from its neighbours, now let&#039;s see what happens.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re right about not setting too many expectations in a test, and I like the metaphor about brand names.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s really important to break through the record/replay concept, even though that&#8217;s how it&#8217;s expressed in Rhino. It puts too much emphasis on shadowing the implementation of the object under test, rather than describing its relationship with its neighbours, and the result is usually brittle.</p>
<p>I try to think of interaction tests as saying: I have this object, to perform this action it will need the following services from its neighbours, now let&#8217;s see what happens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hargen</title>
		<link>http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2008/03/14/clearing-up-the-mock-confusion/#comment-265</link>
		<dc:creator>Hargen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:02:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2008/03/13/clearing-up-the-mock-confusion.aspx#comment-265</guid>
		<description>Good stuff</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good stuff</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Baggio</title>
		<link>http://lostechies.com/jimmybogard/2008/03/14/clearing-up-the-mock-confusion/#comment-264</link>
		<dc:creator>Baggio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:18:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2008/03/13/clearing-up-the-mock-confusion.aspx#comment-264</guid>
		<description>Great post. Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post. Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
