(This is a copy paste from my question posted on GitHub/SwiftyMocky)
(（这是我在GitHub / SwiftyMocky上发布的问题的副本粘贴）)
Introduction First of all, I'm relatively new to SwiftyMocky and my main experience with mocking is using Moq in a C# environment.
(简介首先，我是SwiftyMocky的新手，我的主要模拟经验是在C＃环境中使用Moq。)
Although I am very impressed by SwiftyMocky, I am looking for an edge case that I cannot, or don't know how to, resolve with SwiftyMocky. (尽管我对SwiftyMocky印象深刻，但是我正在寻找一个我无法或不知道如何使用SwiftyMocky解决的优势案例。)
Generating mocks from (external) libraries I'm working on a few libraries/frameworks that are dependent on each other and thus I require to generate mocks.
(从（外部）库生成模拟我正在研究彼此依赖的一些库/框架，因此我需要生成模拟。)
Sometimes I require mocked classes that are defined in other projects/libraries/frameworks. (有时我需要在其他项目/库/框架中定义的模拟类。)
This is where my problem lies, I don't know how to properly manage this. (这就是我的问题所在，我不知道如何正确管理它。)
1) It looks like SwiftyMocky only generates mock classes for files annotated in the current project.
(1）看起来SwiftyMocky只为当前项目中注释的文件生成模拟类。)
If I need to mock classes from other projects, I cannot annotate them. (如果需要模拟其他项目中的类，则无法注释它们。)
Extending those classes and annotating them does not help because it appears SwiftyMocky then only mocks the extension code. (扩展这些类并为它们添加注释无济于事，因为它看上去SwiftyMocky然后仅模拟扩展代码。)
The only solution I see is (re)creating a protocol definition for the class to be mocked, annotate it and use it in my test code. (我看到的唯一解决方案是为要模拟的类创建（重新）协议定义，对其进行批注并在我的测试代码中使用它。)
- It's actually not a bad practise because as it requires to explicitly extend the actual class to conform to my protocol, when this external class has changed the compiler detects protocol non-conformity. (-这实际上不是一个坏习惯，因为它需要显式扩展实际的类以符合我的协议，所以当此外部类已更改时，编译器会检测到协议不合格。)
This is - I guess - the way you should mock Apple or 3rd party classes? (我猜这是模拟Apple或3rd Party类的方式吗？)
- When I am in control of the classes myself, this is a bit boilerplate, as I already created the classes in my source library. (-当我自己控制类时，这有点样板，因为我已经在源库中创建了类。)
2) When creating classes in my source library, I normally provide them with a Protocol as well so my classes are dependent to the protocol instead of concrete implementation (SOLID, anyone?).
(2）在源库中创建类时，通常也向它们提供协议，因此我的类依赖于协议，而不是具体的实现（SOLID，有人吗？）。)
This means I -could- generate the mocks here is well. (这意味着我可以在这里生成模拟了。)
I came up with the idea to generate two libs/frameworks, one with my concrete classes, and one with the generated mocks. (我想到了生成两个库/框架的想法，一个是我的具体类，一个是生成的模拟。)
This way, the mocked code is in a separate library, and my unit test class header looks like: (这样，模拟的代码位于单独的库中，而我的单元测试类标头看起来像：)
import XCTest
import TestLib
import TestLibMocks
class TestLibTests: XCTestCase {
The only problem here is that the generated classes by SwiftyMocky are open classes, and all protocol functions are public, except for the initializer, which are internal.
(这里唯一的问题是，SwiftyMocky生成的类是开放类，并且所有协议函数都是公共的，除了初始化程序是内部的。)
The test code below does not compile because the initialiser is internal: (由于初始化程序是内部的，因此下面的测试代码无法编译：)
func testMock() {
let mock = TestLibProtocolMock()
}
I resolved this by a post build/mock script where I replace the init(...) with public init(...) :
(我解决了这个由后生成/模拟脚本，我更换init(...)与public init(...))
# Type a script or drag a script file from your workspace to insert its path.
swiftymocky generate
sed -i '' "s/ init/ public init/g"
TL;DR I don't know which mocking strategy in Swift is the way to go, so I am looking for some anchors here: - What would be the recommended way to re-use mock within Swift?
(TL; DR我不知道要在Swift中采用哪种模拟策略，因此我在这里寻找一些锚点：-在Swift中重用模拟的推荐方法是什么？)
Should I generate and supply mocks with my library, or should the code that requires the mocks create the protocol code for mocking, even when this leads to a bit boilerplate? (我应该在我的库中生成并提供模拟，还是需要模拟的代码创建用于模拟的协议代码，即使这会导致一些样板工作？)
- Is this idea of generating and providing mock classes with your lib/framework a good idea anyway, and would it be a good feature anyway to generate public init for mocks? (-无论如何，用lib / framework生成并提供模拟类的想法还是一个好主意，并且为模拟生成公共init还是一个好功能吗？)
(in that case, this issue can be considered a change request) (（在这种情况下，可以将此问题视为更改请求）)
ask by Tailz translate from so 
