[bradhe]

Was mostly with the author right up until he shows an example of the worst possible unit test. Testing the implementation and not the intent.

This feels like how Spring must have been born. Trying to think of an alternative, and I think I would be happy with the fat controller example originally given. It's simple enough and straight forward.

Perhaps it's just bad examples all the way around...

[unoti]

I'd be happier with the fat model version than the fat controller. At least that way is amenable to Using the same code via multiple different user interfaces. For example, the normal web site, a mobile app, a data import, and an admin path, and something else that hasn't been though of yet. In general, designing things as though there will be more user interfaces for it in the future is helpful, and tends to push logic out of the controllers.

I see a lot of unit tests like the ones described in this article and have some doubts about their effectiveness for doing much more than spotting syntax errors. Integration testing is still important if the goal is avoiding defects getting out to production.

[lectrick]

I think this was only a poor example because the method under test was a "director" style method (not sure what the name of it would actually be) that simply forwards a bunch of messages/commands to other objects and doesn't do much actual logic/computation.

Tests for these "director" style methods must by nature assert that all the right messages were forwarded to the right objects under the right circumstances, so yes, you do end up with tests that look a lot like what they're testing.

Agreed that ideally you are only testing ins and outs though, but I think this case was exceptional.

[pkolaczk]

It is better to not have a test at all than to have a test that looks a lot like what it is testing. I never uderstood that crazy push for 100% unit test coverage that some are advocating. Unit tests are just one tool among many. Use with care and where appropriate.

[regularfry]

I think this is actually an argument that the tests are telling us that having a controller class this shape isn't the design we should aim for.

[orend]

As I mention in the post, I'd also be perfectly happy with the original if the rest of the application was small and simple. It's hard to come up with an example that's both meaningful and not too long for a blog post.

As for the testing issue, we have a controller-like object there, and a controller’s job is to coordinate sending messages between collaborators so I don't think a unit test for this object should test anything than these interactions. This also might be a consequence of using a simple example.

[tieTYT]

Spring was probably born as a reaction to EJB. And if you've ever written tests for EJBs you're grateful to Spring for providing an alternative.

[ExpiredLink]

I've written UnitTests for EJBs today. No Spring bloatware needed.

[tieTYT]

Well what version of JEE are you using? Compare that to writing unit tests for the version of JEE that existed when Spring was created. A lot of what makes EJBs easier to test today is because of influence by dependency injection frameworks (like Spring) from yesterday.