Ordinary "unit" tests use mocks and focus on a class or a module more-or-less in isolation. The purists say "complete isolation". But that's sometimes unrealistic. A class that's part of a State design pattern or a Strategy design pattern is often so trivial that "pure" unit tests aren't really very enlightening. Using the stateful class along with it's state class hierarchy is usually far more interesting and helpful.
I argue that it's still "unit" testing because parts of the application have been extracted from their processing context.
OS and Module Mocks
Some folks will hand-wring over the use of OS API's or other library API's in a unit test. They feel that the OS API's should be completely mocked in order to call it a "unit" test. In most cases, simplistic mocks can be created, but for most use cases, the mock grows to hellish complexity.
For example, we have a large number of tests which depend on Python's csv module. While we could mock csv to produce row after row of mocked data, it seems much simpler to trust that our infrastructure works, use csv and simply provide files of test data in CSV format. The file is part of the test fixture and is locked up in the source code repository.
Is this "unit" testing when we're integrated with some of the underlying modules?
We don't separately test csv. We simply trust that it library modules have their own tests. If we're willing to trust the already-supplied tests for csv, why not use it in our tests? Why Mock something we've decided to trust?
[For that matter, we also trust Python, the OS and the unittest module itself. Why draw lines between Python, unittest and csv?]
ORM and RDBMS Mocks
A similar kind of worry comes with an ORM layer. Somehow, the "trust" factor starts to break down here. Folks want to mock the ORM layer. Or -- worse -- they want to try and mock the RDBMS layer so that they're testing the application and ORM layer. This is another artificial distinction between stuff we'll trust (the RDBMS layer) and stuff we feel we must write additional tests for (the ORM layer).
It's so much nicer to adopt the Django philosophy of building a test database as part of the test fixture. The ORM and RDBMS are integrated into the test itself. The thing that's "mocked" is the data which gets pre-loaded into the database.
Outside of Django, this can be a bit complex to set up properly. You need to create a temporary database, execute the SQL DDL, load the fixture data. This is an annoying bit of code to write the first time. However, it has handsome rewards because the "unit" testing includes the ORM and RDBMS at a higher level where it's easier to work with.
We use the unittest module to do integration testing also. In Python 2.6, this involved a fair amount of work. We had to start our RESTful server, run the unit test, and then kill the server. Because of the way the subprocess module works, we can't be completely sure the server is running, so we simply cheat and use a time.sleep(12) to wait for the DB to be built and loaded.
Python 2.7 adds module-level test cases. It checks for setUpModule and tearDownModule functions. I've been gleefully revising all our unit tests to make ready for this. Our previous testing needed pervasive (but minor) rewrites to refactor the database setup and tear down and provide proper names.
Once that's in place, our big test shell script can be simplified down to a little Python unittest module. This module will build a unittest.Suite from all the other test modules (there are dozens) and simply execute the suite as a single, integrated whole.