Maybe your understanding of things is wrong? Maybe the information you are getting on the situation is misleading?
I am a democrat who does support ICE. If there are any issues, as there are given the numbers, they should be investigated. There have been many instances where an “execution” is claimed but they, the agents, were reasonable to assume imminent harm and self defense.
That might be the rationale used to obstruct federal agents, but that isn’t really the case. These anti ICE activists are breaking the law, and I do not think this vigilante stance is safe or productive.
You think that an agent needs to show a random bystander a warrant?
No badge, no warrant, with faces covered, indiscriminate attacking people. That's a criminal, not law enforcement. We already have seen people impersonating ICE agents to kidnap, rob, and rape. There's a reason police don't cover their faces.
It’s illegal to interfere with ICE when conducting actual ICE business, but time and again they’ve been shown to be looking for people with no reason to be under investigation let alone arrest. In Pretti’s murder, they were looking for a “violent criminal” who had um….traffic violations, from years prior, and was ummm here legally? And that’s just the most high profile case. If they can’t get their shit together and actually do their job without resorting to executions of citizens and deporting children to counties they’ve never been to, then it is very much our civic duty to stand up to them.
They’re relying heavily on administrative warrants, which don’t have the legal force of a judicial warrant and are more like an internal departmental memo.
In particular, administrative warrants don’t authorize entry into a private home without consent, don’t compel state or local law enforcement to act, don’t function like a criminal warrant, and don’t override 4th amendment protections.
Having to rely on judicial warrants would get in the way of one of their primary goals, which is to pacify the US population through fear. It’s why they now use the murders they’ve committed as threats.
Ken White, AKA popehat, said that the administrative warrants the ice agents sign themselves, are the equivalent of Ron Swanson's "permit" that says "I can do what I want". They're not signed by a judge, which is required by the 4th amendment.
There are many anti ICE activists that are organized. ACLU and Indivisible are two such groups. There are many instances of people obstructing federal agents by anti ICE activists and protesters.
In my experience, it's less gaps and more lack of mainstream brands. The example that comes to mind is ketchup. At Whole Foods I can get generic store brand ketchup or a variety of fancy ketchups that cost 3-10x as much, but they don't have any variety of basic Heinz on the shelf. This "mid-market" gap is common for virtually every product category.
I think I remember reading somewhere that 75% of the groceries at Walmart don’t qualify to be sold at Whole Foods. I thought Amazon was going to step back on this though.
Wegmans is good, but I find Whole Foods to have much better quality of products. Whole Foods used to be even better, we will see how Amazon manages it.
Your comments are the only level headed ones remaining since so many comments have been flagged and removed. These knee jerk reactions are not helpful and tend to be wrong.
I agree. Tests relying on mocks rarely uncover or prevent issues. They also typically make it harder to make changes. Very bad idea that should have been left behind years ago.
For the same reason you isolate variables in a scientific experiment; to ensure you're controlling the test that you're running, and not accidentally testing something else.
To easily simulate failure cases, a range of possible inputs, bad data etc.
To make the testing process faster when you have hundreds or thousands of tests, running on multiple builds simultaneously across an organisation.
OK; it's your choice to do what you think is right.
> and comparing it to scientific experiments doesn’t really apply.
Why not? I think it's a fairly apt comparison; you have a theory ("this piece of code does the following things"), and write tests to prove it.
> You can do all that without mocks as well.
OK, but mocks make it easier and cleaner - so why wouldn't I do that?
> Making the tests run faster at the expense of better tests seems counterproductive.
Smaller, more focused, cleaner tests are better in my opinion; speed is a beneficial side effect.
> Now you should think of reasons why you should not isolate.
Why? That's your argument - it's not on me to prove it for you. If you can give me some good reason why mocking out the interfaces you are not testing is a bad idea, and some better alternative, then we can have a discussion about it.
I don’t want to take too much of a tangent, but in scientific studies, you are trying to understand some phenomena, and isolating variables can help with very complex things. A test is typically not that complex. Another example is the use of animals in testing medicine, it can help but it obviously would be much better to test directly on humans but we don’t for good reason.
Your position is reasonable and I do think isolation can be beneficial, but I still wouldn’t use mocking to do it.
>Smaller, more focused, cleaner tests are better in my opinion.
Cleaner is subjective. I can write “small” and “focused” functional tests that are also quick to run.
I am of the opinion that functional tests provide more value. They are testing more of the actual code than an approximation, which in turn gives a better indicator that it works. Functional tests are less likely to change unless the input/output changes.
Now let’s say you mock something in your function. Let’s say you make a change to that but the input and output are the exact same. Now you have to update your test.
> in scientific studies, you are trying to understand some phenomena, and isolating variables can help with very complex things.
Not to labour the point here, but no, the primary reason you isolate variables in a scientific experiment is that you want to ensure you're only testing the thing you intend to test. A medical study is a good example - you want to be sure that the effect you observed was due to the drug you're testing, and not some unrelated lifestyle factor.
Thanks for sharing your views on the rest; there was just one thing I wanted to expand on:
> Now let’s say you mock something in your function. Let’s say you make a change to that but the input and output are the exact same. Now you have to update your test.
I think the scenario you're describing here is: a function's dependencies have changed, but the inputs and outputs of that function have not; therefore even though the behaviour is the same, the tests still need to be updated. Is that right? In which case I would say: of course you need to update the tests - the dependencies have changed and therefore the behaviour of the function depends on different things and you need to model the behaviour of those new things in order to properly test the original function. To me this objection only holds if you are mainly focussed on code coverage; however, to me, good testing exercises the same code paths in multiple different ways to stress the code and ensure that the results are correct given all possible inputs. The dependencies of a function are also inputs of a kind.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments but we do disagree.
>Is that right? In which case I would say: of course you need to update the tests.
That is right. I think it is bad for you to need to update a test where the input and output are the same. Your mock is there for you to essentially ignore, but now you need to update the test. You now do not know if you introduced a bug.
You are losing out on encapsulation, the test should not know about the internals, generally speaking.
>The dependencies of a function are also inputs of a kind.
Typically that should not be a concern to the caller of the function.
Which is absurd that people use mocks considering the tests are supposed to help with refactoring but because of the mocks they can’t make a change without breaking the test.
I am a democrat who does support ICE. If there are any issues, as there are given the numbers, they should be investigated. There have been many instances where an “execution” is claimed but they, the agents, were reasonable to assume imminent harm and self defense.
reply