Comparisons of Mocking Frameworks for SharePoint Development

Version 5 by Anders Rask
on Jun 11, 2010 06:21.

compared with
Current by yair
on Jun 17, 2010 07:46.

Key
This line was removed.
This word was removed. This word was added.
This line was added.

Changes (2)

View page history
|| || Pros || Cons ||
| [NMock|http://www.nmock.org/] | | |
| [TypeMock|http://www.typemock.com/] | * Mocks sealed objects and internal constructors - required to access various SharePoint Objects | *  Requires the use of the Recording manager which can be a less than desirable method to develop unit tests. |
| [TypeMock|http://www.typemock.com/] | * Mocks sealed objects, static methods and internal constructors - required to access various SharePoint Objects
* Easy to learn, author and maintain  API. Intuitive AAA (Arrange-Act-Assert) API.
* Professional customer support | *  The price |
| [Microsoft Moles|http://research.microsoft.com/moles] | * Mocks sealed objects and internal constructors - required to access various SharePoint Objects - Intuitive authoring with Behaved Types - Available freely on Visual Studio Gallery | *  Moles is still in a very early stage (MS Research) so still low staffed and no guarantee of support |
| [Moq|http://code.google.com/p/moq/] | | |

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Hosted generously by CustomWare