Hi Herby.

There is message #will: which accepts the block with possible arguments (if needed).

��ZnClient stub new will: [ ZnMockClient ...]

But generally your approach looks bad to me. You put too many details on your tests which just��duplicate Zinc API used in the domain code. It makes tests brittle and��tightly coupled. And they looks quite unreadable.

I usually��introduce kind of MyExternalClient intermediate��which provides normal messages to��interact with remote��system.��And it��completely hides overall http communication.

So in tests I stub this guy with simple mocks.��

But in addition I write real communication tests specifically for that object. They can be unstable because it is real network. But idea to test actual communication in single place and abstract the rest of system from it. Also it provide good checker for the possible API changes and��general problems with service.��

Best regards,

Denis

2017-10-17 12:34 GMT+02:00 Herby Voj��k <herby@mailbox.sk>:

Herby Voj��k wrote:

Hello!

I felt the need to mock http api (like nock in node, that is, mock http
request-response itself on low-level part, leaving aside the question of
what wrapper / library one uses to get to that http; in node it mocks
basic http layer, here I tackled ZnClient), but struggled for a time how
to grasp it. Finally I used something like this (with help of Mocketry,
`1 to: 10` to mean "enough to actually be used even if there are more
unrelated uses", it could as well be `1 to: 100`):

ZnClient stub new willReturnValueFrom:
((1 to: 10) collect: [ :i | ZnMockClient

For Denis Kudriashov: would you be willing to add something like `willGenerateValueFrom: aBlock` to Mocketry, so previous two lines could be replaced by simpler:

�� ZnClient stub new willGenerateValueFrom: [ ZnMockClient

?

If something allowing it is there, I am sorry but I haven't found it.

Herby

whenRequest: [ :request |
{ request uri scheme. request uri authority. request uri
pathPrintString. request uri query associations asSet }
= { #https. 'onesignal.com'. '/api/v1/players/{1}' format: { UUID
fromString36: 'Q7' }. { 'app_id' -> appId } asSet }
and: [ #(GET HEAD) includes: request method ] ]
thenResponse: [ :request | ZnResponse ok: (ZnEntity json: '{}') ] ]).

with the help of this class (garbled utf not my fault, iceberg metacello
integration does it):

'From Pharo6.0 of 13 May 2016 [Latest update: #60512] on 17 October 2017
at 12:05:38.908634 pm'!
ZnClient subclass: #ZnMockClient
instanceVariableNames: 'conditionBlock responseBlock'
classVariableNames: ''
poolDictionaries: ''
category: 'Towergame-Tests'!
!ZnMockClient commentStamp: 'HerbyVojcik 10/16/2017 16:43' prior: 0!
I am a mock ZnClient.

I am created with ZnMockClient whenRequest: whenBlock thenResponse:
thenBlock.

Upon execution of the request, when (whenBlock cull: request) is true,
response is set to (thenBlock cull: request). Otherwise, behaviour is
delegated to super.!

!ZnMockClient methodsFor: 'accessing' stamp: 'HerbertVoj�� k 10/17/2017
12:00:27'!
conditionBlock
^ conditionBlock! !

!ZnMockClient methodsFor: 'accessing' stamp: 'HerbertVoj�� k 10/17/2017
12:00:27'!
responseBlock: anObject
responseBlock := anObject! !

!ZnMockClient methodsFor: 'accessing' stamp: 'HerbertVoj�� k 10/17/2017
12:00:27'!
conditionBlock: anObject
conditionBlock := anObject! !

!ZnMockClient methodsFor: 'accessing' stamp: 'HerbertVoj�� k 10/17/2017
12:00:27'!
responseBlock
^ responseBlock! !

!ZnMockClient methodsFor: 'private protocol' stamp: 'HerbertVoj�� k
10/17/2017 12:00:27'!
executeRequestResponse
^ (self conditionBlock cull: self request)
ifTrue: [ response := self responseBlock cull: self request. response
contents ]
ifFalse: [ super executeRequestResponse ]! !

"-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- "!

ZnMockClient class
instanceVariableNames: ''!

!ZnMockClient class methodsFor: 'instance creation' stamp:
'HerbertVoj�� k 10/17/2017 12:00:27'!
whenRequest: aBlock thenResponse: anotherBlock
^ self new
conditionBlock: aBlock;
responseBlock: anotherBlock;
yourself! !

Question 1: Is there a better way?

Question 2: If not, would ZnMockClient be good addition to Zinc itself,
to ease testing for others?

Herby