similar to: Preview of Latest Mocha Changes

Hi guys, I''m running mocha (0.3.2) against Rails core and just found an issue where the mock doesn''t go away after the test is run. For example: def test_reset_bang_doesn_reinstall_named_routes ActionController::Routing::Routes.named_routes.expects(:install).never @session.reset! end def test_zzz puts ActionController::Routing::Routes.named_routes.inspect

Anyone know how to stub Kernel#open? I''m trying to mock/stub an open-uri call, but it doesn''t seem to like it. Here''s the test code, and the failures: body = File.open(File.dirname(__FILE__) + ''/../fixtures/google_search_california.html'').read

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kevin Clark <kevin.clark at gmail.com> Date: 01-Sep-2006 20:31 Subject: Dealing with exec? To: James Mead <jamesmead44 at gmail.com> Hey James, Sorry to bug you. I was curious how you''d handle a call to exec in a method you were testing. Kernel.stubs(:exec)... doesn''t seem to work but I''m not sure where else an

* Hamcrest-style parameter matchers * Values returned and exceptions raised on consecutive invocations * Yields on consecutive invocations * Multiple yields on single invocation * Invocation dispatch fixed * Deprecated returning result of a Proc -- James. http://blog.floehopper.org

Hello, I''ve just started using Mocha in the tests for my Rails app, and I''ve run across an issue with mocking a method that should be called with different parameters. How would I setup a mock that expects that a method will be called once with no paramaters, and a second time with a parameter? I''d be tempted to shortcut and just do something like

Hi :) Does anyone know of a way to set the value of $? ? I have a test which stubs ` ; the call works fine, but then the library I am testing checks the value of $? to see if the process terminated correctly. It seems not to be possible to assign $? directly... For now I do this before my test : `ls > /dev/null` Which ensure that $? is zero ; but this is not a very nice way of doing it !

I find that a lot of times I want to ensure a method gets called exactly once, for example when testing caching or eager loading. What does the list think of adding this little humane method to Mocha::Expectation? def once times(1) self end which means this: def test_should_only_grab_post_once_from_the_cache Post.expects(:get_cache).with(google_vs_yahoo.id).times(1)

Folks- With Rails 2.0.2, I''m seeing mocha failures where they did not fail with Rails 2.0.1 test_set_to_process_fail_in_transaction(FileRecordTest): NoMethodError: undefined method `ord'' for 63:Fixnum /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:45:in `hidden_method''

We''re encountering a failure with Mocha 0.5.6. We had this expectation: game_version.expects(:attributes=).with(:game_file => kind_of(GameFile), :game_id => @game.id) This expectation was passing with 0.5.5, but fails with 0.5.6. I added this test to parameter_matcher_acceptance_test.rb, which passes in 0.5.5 and fails in 0.5.6 def test_should_match_nested_parameters

Hi folks. I''ve just started using rspec and I have to say it''s very nice. The thing is, I prefer mocha''s mocking dialect. So I thought a simple require ''mocha'' would set me up. Unfortunately, rspec does all its goodness using do/end blocks in anonymous classes, so it wasn''t quite that obvious. Anyway, here is the incantation I ended up

I''m pushing a major overhaul in testing the Rails codebase. Mocha and stubba make my life easy so that''s what I''m using. The first major patch using them is in RailTies (http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/5970) now. I spoke to DHH today about using it in the other libraries and I think it''ll be ok, but they really want to include as little code as needed. I

Has anybody been using Mocha trunk over the last month or two? I''ve done quite a bit of internal refactoring and wondered whether anyone had any problems. There are also a bunch of new features e.g. states, sequences, extra parameter matchers & configurable warnings, but these are not documented in the on-line rdoc. I wondered if anyone has been looking at the rdoc in trunk and

Hi James, > From: James Mead <jamesmead44 at gmail.com> > Date: Mar 5, 2007 5:15 AM > Subject: Re: [mocha-developer] Rails functional testing and Mocha > To: mocha-developer at rubyforge.org > "I''d probably stub the call to find not expect it, because its a query not a command" I have a different perspective on when to use stubs and when to use mocks and

Hi, I''ve been reading with interest the threads trying to integrate Mocha and Stubba with RSpec. So far, I''ve made the two changes in spec_helper.rb suggested, but discovered another one that neither of the archives mentions: If you use traditional mocking: object = mock or the stub shortcut : object = stub(:method => :result), you run into namespace conflicts with

Right now I''m working on adding tests to a method that looks like this: def get_via_redirect(path, args={}) get path, args follow_redirect! while redirect? status end So, I want to confirm that get is called and that status is returned but I also want to see that when the value of redirect? effects how many times follow_redirect is called. Is there

This drives me insane on a regular basis. How does one mock system(''blah'') or `blah` ? Adding expectations on Kernel doesn''t do it. Adding expectations on Object just makes me sad: Object.any_instance.expects(:system).with(''ls'') # => #<Mock:0x12b584e>.system(''ls'') - expected calls: 0, actual calls: 1 And this really

Hello all, I''m having difficulty setting up mocks such that I can verify that Rails was going to render the right template file (for example new.rhtml) and stop Rails from performing the actual rendering. After peeking at Rails'' internals, I tried two techniques as illustrated here: http://pastie.caboo.se/18197 Neither worked. I think the first one failed because Rails

Hi, Are there any docs for combining parameter matchers, or some way to define optional parameters? I''m trying to match something like: .find( 42 ) || .find( 42, {:conditions=>nil,:includes=>nil} ) Or for that matter, 42 followed by nothing or anything... Halp? I''ve tried different nested combos with any_of/all_of/anything, but getting lost trying. --Andrew

I prefer to use rspec than test::unit for developing my apps. However I''ve found its mocking library to be pretty inflexible compared to Mocha. This isn''t really a surprise since rspec isn''t intended as a mocking framework, whereas Mocha is. So I''d like to play to both of their strengths and use rspec as my testing/specification framework and Mocha do to

I prefer to use rspec than test::unit for developing my apps. However I''ve found its mocking library to be pretty inflexible compared to Mocha. This isn''t really a surprise since rspec isn''t intended as a mocking framework, whereas Mocha is. So I''d like to play to both of their strengths and use rspec as my testing/specification framework and Mocha do to