> Anything with mocks is an integration. That's ... somewhere between "flat out wrong" and "I have never seen that terminology in use in my career so maybe I'm

> Anything with mocks is an integration. That's ... somewhere between "flat out wrong" and "I have never seen that terminology in use in my career so maybe I'm just extremely unlucky". Sure, when things are on the line between integration and other types of tests the definition is often subjective/debatable. However, in my and my colleagues' experience, most integration tests are distinguished by reduced amounts of mocking, especially as pertains to: dependencies provided by other teams/business units; dependencies provided by third-party code; dependencies provided by networked services (including databases, caches, etc.). In my experience, this tends to result in tests that take a bit longer to run and, due to their lower level of granularity, require slightly longer to understand failures. In return, they provide significantly higher prod-representativeness and business-value-delivered-per-hour-spent-test-writing.