Static, Non-Static. Mockable, Non-Mockable… Instead, Let's Focus on Real Added Value…
The never ending topic of testability… Dogmatic discussions about stuff being static, non-static. Mockable, non-mockable. Testable, non-testable. Here’s an article that was recently syndicated on DZone, about the evilness in making things static:
While the article itself is still somewhat focused on simple means of making something mockable through dependency injection, the big lot of comments and rants is just amazing. If you closely look at the comments, you’ll even find yourself reading gibberish about whether genderless “she” or singular “they” should be preferred. Off-topic troll alarm!
No one doubts the general usefulness of code being testable. If it’s feasible to add automated tests with a reasonable amount of effort, no one sane will question those tests. But where does this anti-static dogma come from? Every project manager will love engineers that follow 80/20 rules. In the end of the day, good software is defined by the added value to all stakeholders. There’s no right or wrong. Instead, there are “50 shades of mockable”. And with a bit of humour we’ll get something in between project day 1 and day 238:
Just face it. Static is a tool like any other tool. It has its merits. And its drawbacks. Choose the tool where it fits and review your overly strict rule set where needed. Being dogmatic will eventually lead to greater chaos than being pragmatic Try to be efficient rather than to fight “evil”. Mocks have their place, as do integration tests.
For those looking for more rants and trolling comments, they can be seen in this article here, where more mocking is advertised in a database context:
And after that. Let’s get back to work and produce something that focuses on adding value!
(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)