2 ms·
Regardless of what Moto describes itself as, if you look at the code you'll realize its not a mock at all, its a fake per your definition. Given your concern wi
by kapilvt 7y ago
Regardless of what Moto describes itself as, if you look at the code you'll realize its not a mock at all, its a fake per your definition. Given your concern with terminology, I'd suggest filing an issue there. Also given the divergence from your terminology in the ecosystem (Moto, localstack) for how tools describes themselves, perhaps its not the norm. To quote from your fowler article "The vocabulary for talking about this soon gets messy - all sorts of words are used: stub, mock, fake, dummy."
- solipsism 7y agoTrue that it gets messy. It seems like the word "mock" might be becoming a general term for what Fowler calls"test doubles". So be it. But stubs and fakes are roughly on opposite sides of the spectrum. Stubs are as simple as can be (doing nothing more than providing logic-free preprogrammed responses), and fakes actually work. There very word "stub" connotes that it's not a full thing, certainly not a thing that works. A stub arm is a tiny piece of an arm. Most of the arm is missing. If we're going to call a fake a mock, fine... but let's not call a fake a stub. We don't need more confusion.