Daily Archives: August 8, 2006

More on JMock and TestNG

More on JMock and TestNG
Firstly, I would like to provide a small fix to the code provided in the previous entry: JMock for TestNG (or JUnit-free JMock)

* Verify the expected behavior for the mocks registered by the current thread and
* also releases them.
public static synchronized void verifyAndRelease() {
   Thread currentThread= Thread.currentThread();
   List mocks = s_mockObjects.get(currentThread);
   if(null != mocks) {
       try {
           for(Verifiable verifiable : mocks) {
       finally {
           // make sure the mocks are released
           s_mockObjects.put(currentThread, null);

The fix assures that even if the verification of a mock fails, the current mocks are released and will not remain around till the next test.

I have started to completely free JMock of its JUnit “addiction”. I have found three types of dependencies:

  • classes in the hierarchy of org.junit.TestCase (3). These can be completely replaced by the class I have already posted
  • usage of org.junit.AssertionFailureException. Having in mind that TestNG works for JVM 1.4+, we have directly used the java.lang.AssertError, and I am thinking to do the same here
  • a couple of classes extending org.junit.Assert (even if they aren’t using much of it). Considering that TestNG propose a more readable form for assertions through org.testng.Assert, this change is quite trivial

I can confess that these changes are already available on my machine and I am already using them. Me and Joe have been discussing about the possibility to integrate these changes directly in JMock. If this will not happen, than I will most probably include the code in TestNG.

A last point (one that I just get me burnt tonite), is that JMock doesn’t check (or I haven’t figured how to make it) the order of expectations, so from its perspective the following code is same correct (or wrong):




will both pass or fail disregarding the real order of invocation. I agree that in most of the cases, JMock behavior is enough good, but not having a way to force the order of invocation is in my opinion a missing feature. I am gonna try to add this feature to my code.



Filed under Uncategorized