The most common objection I've heard to mocking is along the lines of, "If you're mocking, what is the point of the test?" The answer lies in having a clear un

The most common objection I've heard to mocking is along the lines of, "If you're mocking, what is the point of the test?" The answer lies in having a clear understanding of what you are testing. For instance, method A might call another class's method B. If you're writing a unit test for method A, you don't also want to test method B. (Other unit tests would test B in isolation, instead.) So in A's test, you make A call a mock B rather than the real B, and you ensure B returns a particular kind of response. In other words, you want to make sure method A behaves correctly when it gets certain responses from B. So in english, a test is basically saying, "When B gives this type of response (which I'm forcing it to respond with), make sure A behaves as I expect", and a second test says, "When B gives this other type of response (which I'm forcing it to respond with), make sure A behaves as I expect. So when you write a unit test for A, you mock B by making it send back a canned response and make A use it. Then you call A with some parameters, and then you make sure that A's return type is as you expect. One advantage of this is that if a future code enhancement breaks one of the methods deep in the code, then the failing unit test will tell you exactly where the problem is. Without mocking, a failed unit test will make you have to examine several layers of stack trace to find the bug.