Currently, in our integration tests in tests/integration, there are many mock_control_daemon.cpp.
However these files are not mocks at all. Instead they are simulating the behavior of an application which is using the ControlClient Interface to switch RunTargets.
It actually describe a exemplary sequence of steps, but there are no expectations set, which you would normally do when using a Mock Object. To my understanding the correct word would be Stub.
See also these two links:
https://martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html
https://stackoverflow.com/a/346440
When renaming these files to stub_control_daemon.cpp, please also rename the processes in BUILD file and in config. Furthermore also the generated test report name changes, which needs to be updated in python file.
This is a successor of #422
Currently, in our integration tests in tests/integration, there are many
mock_control_daemon.cpp.However these files are not mocks at all. Instead they are simulating the behavior of an application which is using the ControlClient Interface to switch RunTargets.
It actually describe a exemplary sequence of steps, but there are no expectations set, which you would normally do when using a Mock Object. To my understanding the correct word would be Stub.
See also these two links:
https://martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html
https://stackoverflow.com/a/346440
When renaming these files to
stub_control_daemon.cpp, please also rename the processes in BUILD file and in config. Furthermore also the generated test report name changes, which needs to be updated in python file.This is a successor of #422