Would the extraction of a Servo interface be a welcome contribution?

[suhlig]

Thanks for this library, first of all! I am using it to flip the light switch in my workshop after receiving a command over MQTT. Works nicely!

I was looking into testing my code a bit more and wanted to fake (mock) the real servos in my test code. I found ArdiunoFake, which is based on FakeIt. Both are focused on providing mocks of interfaces, which is hard (impossible?) to do with concrete classes like Servo.

Looking at the code, it seems quite possible to rename the current Servo class to e.g. ServoESP32 and then extract a new Servo interface from it. Doing this would make mocking and testing the code using Servo possible or at least much easier.

The downside would that it breaks backward compatibility. If that is an issue, keeping Servo and extracting IServo would be a possibility (not preferred by me, at least).

Before investing time into that, I wanted to check if there is interest in a contribution like this, or if there are alternative suggestions how to unit-test code that is using this library without having to attach an actual servo during testing.

[JarekParal]

Hi @suhlig, excuse me for the long reply. Unfortunately, I missed your issue/message in my mailbox.

I like your idea and I'm not against adding the interface class to this source code. But I'm not so happy with your proposed solution (rename class Servo to ServoESP32) as this solution is breaking compatibility.

What are your arguments against creating IServo interface class for the current Servo class? Or what advantages you would get with renaming Servo class to ServoESP32?

[suhlig]

rename class Servo to ServoESP32 [...] is breaking compatibility.

Yeah, that's what I guessed. I don't think the proposed change would be valuable enough to warrant breaking compatibility.

As for Servo vs. IServo, it might be a matter of personal taste, but that seems to vary.

I will come up with a proposal and then we can discuss further based on that.