Quick setup - if you've done this kind of thing before
https://github.com/your-account/sample.git
// ... or create a new repository on the command line
echo "# sample" >> README.md
git init
git add README.md
git commit -m "first commit"
git branch -M main
git remote add origin https://github.com/your-account/sample.git
pit push -u origin main
// ... or push an existing repository from the command line
git remote add origin https://github.com/your-account/sample.git
git branch -M main
git push -u orign main
Create 10 git commit messages in English for the following changes in the following format. The emoji should be one of the github-shortcode characters that matches your changes.
Format: "emoji :github-shortcode: prefix:commit-message"
Change Description: "アプリ起動時間のの短縮"
Refer to the provided git diff or code snippet and provide a suitable commit message.
When reviewing the diff or code, focus on identifying the main purpose of the changes.
Are they fixing a bug, adding a new feature, improving performance or readability, or something else?
Use this information to craft a concise and detailed gitmoji commit message that clearly describes what the provided code or diff does.
Describe the change to the best of your capabilities in one short sentence. Don't go into too much detail.
When reviewing a diff, pay attention to the changed filenames and extract the context of the changes.
This will help you create a more relevant and informative commit message.
Here are some examples of how you can interpret some changed filenames:
- Files or filepaths that reference testing are usually related to tests.
- Markdown files are usually related to documentation.
- Config file adjustments are usually related to configuration changes.
Here is a list of gitmoji codes and their descriptions of what they mean when they are used: """
${gitmojis}
"""
Try to match the generated message to a fitting emoji using its description from the provided list above.
So go look in the descriptions and find the one that best matches the description.
Always start your commit message with a gitmoji followed by the message starting with a capital letter.
Never mention filenames or function names in the message.
Don't do this:
- :bug: Fix issue in calculateTotalPrice function
- :zap: Improve performance of calculateTopProducts function
- :lipstick: Refactor styling for calculateCartTotal function
- :memo: Update documentation for getProductById function
Do this:
- :bug: Fix issue with shopping cart checkout process
- :zap: Improve performance of search functionality
- :lipstick: Refactor styling for product details page
- :memo: Update documentation for API endpoints
${
context
? `
Refer to the provided additional context to assist you with choosing a correct gitmoji
and constructing a good message: """
${context}
"""
`
: ''
}
Here is the provided git diff or code snippet: """
${prepareDiff(diff, minify)}
"""
In classic tests, many people like the fact that client tests may catch errors that the main tests for an object may have missed, particularly probing areas where classes interact. Mockist tests lose that quality. In addition you also run the risk that expectations on mockist tests can be incorrect, resulting in unit tests that run green but mask inherent errors
When you write a mockist test, you are testing the outbound calls of the SUT to ensure it talks properly to its suppliers. A classic test only cares about the final state — not how that state was derived. Mockist tests are thus more coupled to the implementation of a method. Coupling to the implementation also interferes with refactoring, since implementation changes are much more likely to break tests than with classic testing.
I don’t see any compelling benefits for mockist TDD, and am concerned about the consequences of coupling tests to implementation. I really like the fact that while writing the test you focus on the result of the behavior, not how it’s done. A mockist is constantly thinking about how the SUT is going to be implemented in order to write the expectations. This feels really unnatural to me.
Mocking the interactions between all classes forces you to create mocks that return other mocks (that might return yet other mocks). You have to mock out all the data pathways in the interaction; and that can be a complex task. This creates two problems. 1. The setup code can get extremely complicated. 2. The mocking structure become tightly coupled to implementation details causing many tests to break when those details are modified.
The need to mock every class interaction forces an explosion of polymorphic interfaces. In statically typed languages like Java, that means the creation of lots of extra interface classes whose sole purpose is to allow mocking. This is over-abstraction and the dreaded ‘design damage’.
I recommend that you mock sparingly. Find a way to test — design a way to test — your code so that it doesn’t require a mock.
I mock almost nothing. If I can’t figure out how to test efficiently with the real stuff, I find another way of creating a feedback loop for myself.
If I use TDD, I can refactor stuff. And then I heard these stories people say that they use TDD and now they can’t refactor anything. I couldn’t understand that and then I started looking at their tests: If you have mocks returning mocks, returning mocks, your test is completely coupled to the implementation, not the interface, but the exact implementation. Of course you can’t change anything without breaking the test. That for me is too high a price to pay, that’s not a trade-off I’m willing to make.
When we refactored something all these tests with mocks broke and we had to rewrite all the mocks. It was kind of puzzling because the promise was that we should be able to refactor our code, because our tests would enable us to refactor and refactoring kept our code healthy. But the tests were an obstacle to that change, since they were breaking when we changed our implementation details.
Avoid heavy mocking. This allows you to meet the promise to refactoring. You will refactor your code and your tests won’t break.
Mocks are useful when a resource is expensive to create, but the problem with mock objects essentially is that people have used them to isolate classes. Don’t do that.
