SOFTWARE ENGINEERING blog & .lessons_learned
manuel aldana
Manuel Aldana

June 27th, 2010 · No Comments

From Java Easymock to Mockito

While browsing through open-source project sonar’s test-code I noticed that they had package imports with Mockito namespace. What I noticed was that the mocking test-code looked similar to easymock but less cluttered and better readable. So I gave Mockito (version was 1.8.3 back then) a try when implementing new test-cases and did not regret it :).

Easymock before

Around 2005 there were several mocking frameworks available. The main reason I chose to work with easymock was that it was both powerful and refactoring friendly. It supports automatic safe refactorings well because the expectations on method calls aren’t setup as a loose string-snippet but on statically typed info (method call expectations are directly bound to the object-type).

Though I found easymock great and made stubbing and mocking much easier as before, I found it had some drawbacks (speaking of version 2.5):

  • The mocking/stubbing of interfaces vs. classes is not transparent. It is done through different Main-classes (EasyMock + classextension.EasyMock). This implied that mixing mocking both interfaces and classes inside one test-class followed in cluttered code and importing hell.
  • The error messages of easymock are confusing sometimes. Often it is not clear whether the test-case has failed or easymock was used wrong (e.g. forgetting to call replay()).
  • The mandatory call of replay() after having setup the mocked object always felt redundant and made test-case longer.
  • The non-clear separation between setting up a mock and verifying it. Setting up a mock added also a verification on all expectations as soon as you called verify(). When writing + reading test-code this always confused me, because you already had to cope with verify logic in the setup part of the test-case.

Mockito after

The guys of Mockito say that they were inspired by Easymock and indeed you see its heritage. After having used it for about 3 months now so far the hands-on impressions are great and I now exclusively use Mockito for writing unit-tests.

My positive experiences were:

  • Test-code still is safe in regard of using static-typed based automatic refactorings.
  • Transparency of classes vs. interfaces. In both cases you call Mockito.mock(MyInterface.class) or Mockito.mock(MyClass.class).
  • Clear seperation between setting up a mock and verifiying it. This feels more intuitive and the clear setup/excercise/verify test-code order is preserved.
  • Helpful error message, when an assertion wasn’t met or the tool guessed a framework usage error.
  • The naming of methods is intuitive (like when(), thenReturn()).
  • When earlier I used the real domain-objects as test-data (i.e. by filling data through setters/constructors), now I use mockito to stub them (i.e. stubbing the getters). Domain code logic has now much less impact on test-runs.
  • Nice short, straightforward documentation.
  • A great name + logo ;)

In summary: The mockito folks did a great job (they took the nice ideas from Easymock creator and improved its drawbacks). Now looking at old test-code using Easymock I subjectively need much more time to grasp what the intent of the test is. With Mockito the test-cases read more like a clear sequential “requirements story” like test-cases always should.

Migration of test-code

If you are already using easymock the tool switch is amazingly quick. Following migration path helped me:

  1. Give yourself and your colleagues around two weeks investing time to work with the tool and get comfortable with it. Write all your new test-classes with Mockito.
  2. If you like it make the switch: Explicitly communicate that using the old mocking framework is deprecated (if possible use static code analysis tools where you can mark severaly packages deprecated (org.easymock.*)). Now usage of Mockito for new test-classes should be mandatory.
  3. If you have already big test-codebase I do NOT recommend a big-bang test-code migration. Such migration work is time consuming and boring. Therefore taking the incremental approach is better: Only migrate Easymock code to Mockito in case you anyway touch the class, i.e. are modifying or adding test-cases.

Looking at the test-migrations I did so far, migrating Easymock code to Mockito is quite straightforward. Get rid of all replay(), verify() calls and adjust to the slight API changes. The only thing you have to watch out for more are the explicit verification on mocked-calls. Easymock did implicitly verify all expectations when calling verify() on the mock-object, on Mockito side you explicitly have to call verifications on each method. The same counts for strict mocks. You have to add respective verifications.

Tags: Continous Integration · Software Engineering · Technologies/Tools

0 responses

    You must log in to post a comment.