rspec users - Sep 2010 - Monitor method invoking from superclass

Dear All,

Class B is a subclass of class A. Could anyone tell me how to monitor if object
created from class B receives a super message when its method is invoked.
Thanks.

Best regards,
Lei, Zhi-Qiang

On Sep 30, 2010, at 4:02 AM, Zhi-Qiang Lei wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> Class B is a subclass of class A. Could anyone tell me how to monitor if
object created from class B receives a super message when its method is invoked.
Thanks.
I don''t know of a way to do that. What problem are you trying to solve?

Class A
  def a
    #some code
  end
end

Class B
  def a
    #some code
    super
  end
end

I want to if B is receive ''super'' message. Thanks.

On Sep 30, 2010, at 7:59 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2010, at 4:02 AM, Zhi-Qiang Lei wrote:
> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> Class B is a subclass of class A. Could anyone tell me how to monitor
if object created from class B receives a super message when its method is
invoked. Thanks.
> 
> I don''t know of a way to do that. What problem are you trying to
solve?
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

On Sep 30, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Zhi-Qiang Lei wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2010, at 7:59 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 30, 2010, at 4:02 AM, Zhi-Qiang Lei wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> Class B is a subclass of class A. Could anyone tell me how to
monitor if object created from class B receives a super message when its method
is invoked. Thanks.
>> 
>> I don''t know of a way to do that. What problem are you trying
to solve?
[ I moved your post to the bottom. Please post at the bottom or in-line]
> Class A
>  def a
>    #some code
>  end
> end
> 
> Class B
>  def a
>    #some code
>    super
>  end
> end
> 
> I want to if B is receive ''super'' message. Thanks.
I understand what you meant, but I don''t understand why you want to do
this. What is the bigger problem you are trying to solve? Why do you want to
monitor when super gets called?

On Sep 30, 2010, at 9:15 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Zhi-Qiang Lei wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 30, 2010, at 7:59 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sep 30, 2010, at 4:02 AM, Zhi-Qiang Lei wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> 
>>>> Class B is a subclass of class A. Could anyone tell me how to
monitor if object created from class B receives a super message when its method
is invoked. Thanks.
>>> 
>>> I don''t know of a way to do that. What problem are you
trying to solve?
> 
> [ I moved your post to the bottom. Please post at the bottom or in-line]
> 
>> Class A
>> def a
>>   #some code
>> end
>> end
>> 
>> Class B
>> def a
>>   #some code
>>   super
>> end
>> end
>> 
>> I want to if B is receive ''super'' message. Thanks.
> 
> I understand what you meant, but I don''t understand why you want
to do this. What is the bigger problem you are trying to solve? Why do you want
to monitor when super gets called?
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Thank you. Actually what I want is just to write a test case for it, with rspec.

On Sep 30, 2010, at 8:20 AM, Zhi-Qiang Lei wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2010, at 9:15 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 30, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Zhi-Qiang Lei wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sep 30, 2010, at 7:59 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 30, 2010, at 4:02 AM, Zhi-Qiang Lei wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Class B is a subclass of class A. Could anyone tell me how
to monitor if object created from class B receives a super message when its
method is invoked. Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> I don''t know of a way to do that. What problem are you
trying to solve?
>> 
>> [ I moved your post to the bottom. Please post at the bottom or
in-line]
>> 
>>> Class A
>>> def a
>>>  #some code
>>> end
>>> end
>>> 
>>> Class B
>>> def a
>>>  #some code
>>>  super
>>> end
>>> end
>>> 
>>> I want to if B is receive ''super'' message.
Thanks.
>> 
>> I understand what you meant, but I don''t understand why you
want to do this. What is the bigger problem you are trying to solve? Why do you
want to monitor when super gets called?
> 
> Thank you. Actually what I want is just to write a test case for it, with
rspec.
You can not.

Good luck,
David

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:45 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2010, at 8:20 AM, Zhi-Qiang Lei wrote:
>>>> I want to if B is receive ''super'' message.
Thanks.
>>>
>>> I understand what you meant, but I don''t understand why
you want to do this. What is the bigger problem you are trying to solve? Why do
you want to monitor when super gets called?
>>
>> Thank you. Actually what I want is just to write a test case for it,
with rspec.
>
> You can not.
And following up on David''s reply, I don''t think you should,
Lei.

What you really should be testing that the observable effects of the
call are ''as if'' the super call were made.

If you could test that the super call was made it would be testing
that the implementation were a certain way more than the behavior of
the object, and that''s the road to writing brittle tests.

-- 
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Github: http://github.com/rubyredrick
Twitter: @RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

On Sep 30, 2010, at 9:56 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 9:45 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at
gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 2010, at 8:20 AM, Zhi-Qiang Lei wrote:
> 
>>>>> I want to if B is receive ''super''
message. Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> I understand what you meant, but I don''t understand
why you want to do this. What is the bigger problem you are trying to solve? Why
do you want to monitor when super gets called?
>>> 
>>> Thank you. Actually what I want is just to write a test case for
it, with rspec.
>> 
>> You can not.
> 
> And following up on David''s reply, I don''t think you
should, Lei.
> 
> What you really should be testing that the observable effects of the
> call are ''as if'' the super call were made.
> 
> If you could test that the super call was made it would be testing
> that the implementation were a certain way more than the behavior of
> the object, and that''s the road to writing brittle tests.
> 
> -- 
> Rick DeNatale
> 
> Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
> Github: http://github.com/rubyredrick
> Twitter: @RickDeNatale
> WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
In my case, there is already a test case for the method in class A, and its
feature is complex. So I was trying to test the super call but observable effect
for simple. Anyway, thank you both.

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Zhi-Qiang Lei <zhiqiang.lei at
gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 30, 2010, at 9:56 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote:
>
>> What you really should be testing that the observable effects of the
>> call are ''as if'' the super call were made.
>>
>> If you could test that the super call was made it would be testing
>> that the implementation were a certain way more than the behavior of
>> the object, and that''s the road to writing brittle tests.
>
> In my case, there is already a test case for the method in class A, and its
feature is complex. So I was trying to test the super call but observable effect
for simple. Anyway, thank you both.
That''s what shared example groups are for.


-- 
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Github: http://github.com/rubyredrick
Twitter: @RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

Rick, could you elaborate on this? I''m curious, how would you use a
shared
example group here, given his sample code?

My first thought was to use ancestors to get the parent class, and re-define
the ''a'' method there to do something simple and observable,
and then test
that. Is that evil?

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale at
gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Zhi-Qiang Lei <zhiqiang.lei at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sep 30, 2010, at 9:56 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote:
> >
>
> >> What you really should be testing that the observable effects of
the
> >> call are ''as if'' the super call were made.
> >>
> >> If you could test that the super call was made it would be testing
> >> that the implementation were a certain way more than the behavior
of
> >> the object, and that''s the road to writing brittle tests.
>
> >
> > In my case, there is already a test case for the method in class A,
and
> its feature is complex. So I was trying to test the super call but
> observable effect for simple. Anyway, thank you both.
>
> That''s what shared example groups are for.
>
>
> --
> Rick DeNatale
>
> Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
> Github: http://github.com/rubyredrick
> Twitter: @RickDeNatale
> WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100930/b121d187/attachment.html>