|
|
|
|
|
by mdpye
1569 days ago
|
|
How do you convince the when-to-fire-logic to act on a mock, if the torpedo implementation is not provided from outside it? I'm wondering if I have the terminology understood differently to other people, because to me, DI == IoC. DI Frameworks are build on top of the concept that dependencies will be injected, but doing it explicitly in your start-up code is the same thing to me. |
|
This is the same conversation I had with the new hire I mentioned. And as the other comment here mentioned, it's JavaScript. You simply overwrite the object method with the mock at runtime of the test, then restore it after the test finishes running.
Most JS testing frameworks do this under the hood I believe, without any change in how you write your code. It's a fundamental difference in how JavaScript handles things versus something stricter like C#.
It's a dangerous footgun if you use it carelessly, of course. But a useful language feature when applied carefully.