I like to distinguish between mocks and fakes. Mocks just return whatever you tell them to return for that test, but a fake is a simplified in-memory implementa

I like to distinguish between mocks and fakes. Mocks just return whatever you tell them to return for that test, but a fake is a simplified in-memory implementation (fakes aren't useful for testing error conditions, however, so you may need a few tests which actually do mock if you want to get more complete coverage). Most of the time for third-party services, I'll just fake the service client for unit tests. For example, if I'm writing a BookStoreApp that has a BookStore dependency (where BookStore is an interface), the concrete implementation for which is a PostgresBookStore, then I'll write my PostgresBookStore client library with unit tests that include a real postgres connection but then my BookStoreApp tests will use a FakeBookStore (which is probably a thin wrapper around a dict, but which behaves like a BookStore should modulo persistence). Finally, I'll have considerably fewer API tests which actually do stand up the complete backend service (including a PostgresBookStore). This way I get a high degree of confidence and also speed of test execution--it's also nice not to have to stand up the entire world just to run one test (in particular, it's nice not to have to debug unrelated connection/auth issues).