rspec users - Jul 2010 - should_receive test unexpectedly failing

I''m unsure why this test is still failing.  I''ve tested it in
console
and the code works as expected.  Is there something wrong with how I
have my test written?

****************** error

1) Job selecting the next job to be processed should lock the next job
    Failure/Error: job.should_receive(:update_attribute).with(:locked,
true)
    (#<Job:0x105496488>).update_attribute(:locked, true)
        expected: 1 time
        received: 0 times


****************** job_spec.rb

    it "should lock the next job" do
     job = Factory(:job, :locked => false)
     job.should_receive(:update_attribute).with(:locked, true)
     Job.next
    end


****************** job.rb

    def self.next
      job = incomplete.unlocked.prioritized.limit(1).first
      job.lock! if job
      job
    end

  def lock!
    update_attribute(:locked, true)
  end

  def unlock!
    update_attribute(:locked, false)
  end

On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:48 AM, ericindc wrote:
> I''m unsure why this test is still failing.  I''ve tested
it in console
> and the code works as expected.  Is there something wrong with how I
> have my test written?
> 
> ****************** error
> 
> 1) Job selecting the next job to be processed should lock the next job
>    Failure/Error: job.should_receive(:update_attribute).with(:locked,
> true)
>    (#<Job:0x105496488>).update_attribute(:locked, true)
>        expected: 1 time
>        received: 0 times
> 
> 
> ****************** job_spec.rb
> 
>    it "should lock the next job" do
>     job = Factory(:job, :locked => false)
>     job.should_receive(:update_attribute).with(:locked, true)
>     Job.next
>    end
> 
> 
> ****************** job.rb
> 
>    def self.next
>      job = incomplete.unlocked.prioritized.limit(1).first
This job object is not the same object as the on in the spec. To get this to
work, you''d have to stub like so:

  Job.stub_chain(:incomplete, :unlocked, :prioritized, :limit).and_return(job)

Personally, I wouldn''t bother, especially since you''re using a
real db backed object anyhow (Factory(:job ...)). I''d just write the
spec like this:

job = Factory(:job, :locked => false)
job.next
job.should_not be_locked

Much cleaner and to the point, and less invasive (and therefore less brittle).

HTH,
David
>      job.lock! if job
>      job
>    end
> 
>  def lock!
>    update_attribute(:locked, true)
>  end
> 
>  def unlock!
>    update_attribute(:locked, false)
>  end
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users