rspec users - Sep 2008 - How to define request.domain in when testing

Hi,

My application relies on request.domain for doing its job. The problem I
am encountering, is that when running tests, request.domain returns
"test.host", how can I change that so that it returns
"mysite.com"?

Thanks in advance.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

On 24.9.2008, at 12.51, Fernando Perez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My application relies on request.domain for doing its job. The  
> problem I
> am encountering, is that when running tests, request.domain returns
> "test.host", how can I change that so that it returns
"mysite.com"?
Set this somewhere in your test environment:

       ActionController::Base.default_url_options.update :host =>  
''mysite.com''

//jarkko

--
Jarkko Laine
http://jlaine.net
http://dotherightthing.com
http://www.railsecommerce.com
http://odesign.fi

Hi jarkko,

I get the following error message:
---
`load_environment'': undefined method `default_url_options'' for
ActionController::Base:Class (NoMethodError)
---

>From this 
ticket:http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/22-default_url_options-is-being-ignored-by-named-route-optimisation

It was at that time expected to deprecate default_url_options, so maybe 
it was removed from Rails 2.1?
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

On 24.9.2008, at 14.07, Fernando Perez wrote:
> Hi jarkko,
>
> I get the following error message:
> ---
> `load_environment'': undefined method
`default_url_options'' for
> ActionController::Base:Class (NoMethodError)
> ---
>
>
>> From this
>
ticket:http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/22-default_url_options-is-being-ignored-by-named-route-optimisation
>
> It was at that time expected to deprecate default_url_options, so  
> maybe
> it was removed from Rails 2.1?
Might be I''ve only played with it within action_mailer, where it still
works:
config.action_mailer.default_url_options = { :host =>  
"development_url.com" }

Not sure if it works the same way with ActionController, though. You  
can of course set the request host by hand in a setup method:

@request.host = host

//jarkko

--
Jarkko Laine
http://jlaine.net
http://dotherightthing.com
http://www.railsecommerce.com
http://odesign.fi

Hi, I have one problem testing one method to learn rSpec. This is the
example

#foo.rb

class Foo < ActiveRecord::Base
  has_one :bar

  def foo
    @bar.bar -= - 1
  end
end


#bar.rb
class Bar < ActiveRecord::Base
end


#foo_spec.rb
require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) +
''/../spec_helper'')

describe Foo do
  before(:each) do
    @bar = mock_model(Bar, :bar= => 1)
    @foo = Foo.new(:bar => @bar)
    @before_value = @foo.bar
  end

  it "should foo" do
    @foo.foo.should be_equal(@value_before - 1)
  end
end


I got this error:

1)
Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''Foo should foo''
Mock ''Bar_1001'' received unexpected message :bar with (no
args)
/home/carlos/NetBeansProjects/prueba/app/models/foo.rb:5:in `foo''
/home/carlos/NetBeansProjects/prueba/spec/models/foo_spec.rb:11:

How can I do this test using mocks?

Thanks ;).

On 24 Sep 2008, at 13:35, Carlos Rafael Beliz?n Ib??ez wrote:
> Hi, I have one problem testing one method to learn rSpec. This is the
> example
>
> #foo.rb
>
> class Foo < ActiveRecord::Base
>   has_one :bar
>
>   def foo
>     @bar.bar -= - 1
>   end
> end
>
>
> #bar.rb
> class Bar < ActiveRecord::Base
> end
>
>
> #foo_spec.rb
> require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) +
''/../spec_helper'')
>
> describe Foo do
>   before(:each) do
>     @bar = mock_model(Bar, :bar= => 1)
>     @foo = Foo.new(:bar => @bar)
>     @before_value = @foo.bar
>   end
>
>   it "should foo" do
>     @foo.foo.should be_equal(@value_before - 1)
>   end
> end
>
>
> I got this error:
>
> 1)
> Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''Foo should foo''
> Mock ''Bar_1001'' received unexpected message :bar with (no
args)
> /home/carlos/NetBeansProjects/prueba/app/models/foo.rb:5:in `foo''
> /home/carlos/NetBeansProjects/prueba/spec/models/foo_spec.rb:11:
>
> How can I do this test using mocks?
try using stub_model instead of mock_model when you create @bar

If you create a mock object using mock_model(), or mock(), you have  
to stub or mock absolutely all the interactions it will have with the  
class under test. In this case, when you call Foo#foo, it calls the  
#bar method on your mock Bar, which hasn''t been set up to expect that  
call.

So either use stub_model(Bar), which will create an instance of your  
concrete Bar class (and will therefore more likely know what to do  
when #bar is called), or remember to call @bar.stub!("bar-=") or  
whatever.

Make sense?
>
> Thanks ;).
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
cheers,
Matt
----
http://blog.mattwynne.net
http://songkick.com

In case you wondered: The opinions expressed in this email are my own  
and do not necessarily reflect the views of any former, current or  
future employers of mine.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Matt Wynne <matt at mattwynne.net>
wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2008, at 13:35, Carlos Rafael Beliz?n Ib??ez wrote:
>
>> Hi, I have one problem testing one method to learn rSpec. This is the
>> example
>>
>> #foo.rb
>>
>> class Foo < ActiveRecord::Base
>>  has_one :bar
>>
>>  def foo
>>    @bar.bar -= - 1
>>  end
>> end
>>
>>
>> #bar.rb
>> class Bar < ActiveRecord::Base
>> end
>>
>>
>> #foo_spec.rb
>> require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) +
''/../spec_helper'')
>>
>> describe Foo do
>>  before(:each) do
>>    @bar = mock_model(Bar, :bar= => 1)
>>    @foo = Foo.new(:bar => @bar)
>>    @before_value = @foo.bar
>>  end
>>
>>  it "should foo" do
>>    @foo.foo.should be_equal(@value_before - 1)
>>  end
>> end
>>
>>
>> I got this error:
>>
>> 1)
>> Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''Foo should foo''
>> Mock ''Bar_1001'' received unexpected message :bar with
(no args)
>> /home/carlos/NetBeansProjects/prueba/app/models/foo.rb:5:in
`foo''
>> /home/carlos/NetBeansProjects/prueba/spec/models/foo_spec.rb:11:
>>
>> How can I do this test using mocks?
>
> try using stub_model instead of mock_model when you create @bar
>
> If you create a mock object using mock_model(), or mock(), you have to stub
> or mock absolutely all the interactions it will have with the class under
> test.
Or you could use mock_model(..).as_null_object (assuming you have the
current HEAD).
> In this case, when you call Foo#foo, it calls the #bar method on your
> mock Bar, which hasn''t been set up to expect that call.
>
> So either use stub_model(Bar), which will create an instance of your
> concrete Bar class (and will therefore more likely know what to do when
#bar
> is called), or remember to call @bar.stub!("bar-=") or whatever.
>
> Make sense?
>
>>
>> Thanks ;).
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> cheers,
> Matt
> ----
> http://blog.mattwynne.net
> http://songkick.com
>
> In case you wondered: The opinions expressed in this email are my own and
do
> not necessarily reflect the views of any former, current or future
employers
> of mine.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On 24 Sep 2008, at 14:38, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Matt Wynne <matt at mattwynne.net>  
> wrote:
>> On 24 Sep 2008, at 13:35, Carlos Rafael Beliz?n Ib??ez wrote:
>>
>>> If you create a mock object using mock_model(), or mock(), you  
>>> have to stub
>> or mock absolutely all the interactions it will have with the  
>> class under
>> test.
>
> Or you could use mock_model(..).as_null_object (assuming you have the
> current HEAD).
This is the new record / playback stuff eh?

cheers,
Matt
----
http://blog.mattwynne.net
http://songkick.com

In case you wondered: The opinions expressed in this email are my own  
and do not necessarily reflect the views of any former, current or  
future employers of mine.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Matt Wynne <matt at mattwynne.net>
wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2008, at 14:38, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Matt Wynne <matt at
mattwynne.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24 Sep 2008, at 13:35, Carlos Rafael Beliz?n Ib??ez wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you create a mock object using mock_model(), or mock(), you
have to
>>>> stub
>>>
>>> or mock absolutely all the interactions it will have with the class
under
>>> test.
>>
>> Or you could use mock_model(..).as_null_object (assuming you have the
>> current HEAD).
>
> This is the new record / playback stuff eh?
No relation. It''s just a method that lets you say
mock(''foo'').as_null_object instead of
mock(''foo'', :null_object =>
true).

El mi?, 24-09-2008 a las 09:22 -0500, David Chelimsky
escribi?:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Matt Wynne <matt at mattwynne.net>
wrote:
> > On 24 Sep 2008, at 14:38, David Chelimsky wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Matt Wynne <matt at
mattwynne.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 24 Sep 2008, at 13:35, Carlos Rafael Beliz?n Ib??ez wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> If you create a mock object using mock_model(), or mock(),
you have to
> >>>> stub
> >>>
> >>> or mock absolutely all the interactions it will have with the
class under
> >>> test.
> >>
> >> Or you could use mock_model(..).as_null_object (assuming you have
the
> >> current HEAD).
> >
> > This is the new record / playback stuff eh?
> 
> No relation. It''s just a method that lets you say
> mock(''foo'').as_null_object instead of
mock(''foo'', :null_object =>
> true).
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Sorry, before I wrote with errors the example (it''s the problem if you
are remember without code at your face). This is the correct example
with the suggestions to fix the problem:

#foo.rb
class Foo < ActiveRecord::Base
  has_one :bar
  
  def foo
    self.bar.count -= 1
  end
end

#foo_spec.rb
require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) +
''/../spec_helper'')

describe Foo do
  before(:each) do
    @bar = stub_model(Bar, :count => 1)
    @foo = Foo.new(:bar => @bar)
    @before_value = @foo.bar
  end
  
  it "should decrement bar.count in 1" do
    @foo.foo
    @foo.bar.count.should be_equal(@value_before - 1)
  end
end

#bar.rb
class Bar < ActiveRecord::Base
end

And now, I got this error:
1)
NoMethodError in ''Foo should decrement bar.count in 1''
undefined method `count='' for #<Bar id: 1001, created_at: nil,
updated_at: nil>
/home/carlos/NetBeansProjects/RailsApplication1/app/models/foo.rb:5:in
`foo''
/home/carlos/NetBeansProjects/RailsApplication1/spec/models/foo_spec.rb:11:

What it''s wrong? Can I make this type of test with mock or stub?

I''m really need your help guys to understand the philosophy of BDD.
This
is a par of my Final Career Project.

Thanks ;).

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Carlos Rafael Beliz?n Ib??ez
<paliyoes at gmail.com> wrote:
> I''m really need your help guys to understand the philosophy of
BDD. This
> is a par of my Final Career Project.
Here''s a short tutorial to get you started.

http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/articles/2007/05/14/an-introduction-to-rspec-part-i

Let us know if you have any specific questions.

Cheers,
David

>
> Thanks ;).
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On 24 Sep 2008, at 16:02, Carlos Rafael Beliz?n Ib??ez
wrote:
>
> Sorry, before I wrote with errors the example (it''s the problem if
you
> are remember without code at your face). This is the correct example
> with the suggestions to fix the problem:
>
> #foo.rb
> class Foo < ActiveRecord::Base
>   has_one :bar
>
>   def foo
>     self.bar.count -= 1
>   end
> end
>
> #foo_spec.rb
> require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) +
''/../spec_helper'')
>
> describe Foo do
>   before(:each) do
>     @bar = stub_model(Bar, :count => 1)
>     @foo = Foo.new(:bar => @bar)
>     @before_value = @foo.bar
>   end
>
>   it "should decrement bar.count in 1" do
>     @foo.foo
>     @foo.bar.count.should be_equal(@value_before - 1)
>   end
> end
>
> #bar.rb
> class Bar < ActiveRecord::Base
> end
>
> And now, I got this error:
> 1)
> NoMethodError in ''Foo should decrement bar.count in 1''
> undefined method `count='' for #<Bar id: 1001, created_at: nil,
> updated_at: nil>
> /home/carlos/NetBeansProjects/RailsApplication1/app/models/foo.rb:5:in
> `foo''
> /home/carlos/NetBeansProjects/RailsApplication1/spec/models/ 
> foo_spec.rb:11:
>
> What it''s wrong? Can I make this type of test with mock or stub?
You''re expecting the Bar class to implement an interface which  
supports you calling count -= 1 on it.

Have you checked (for example, using script/console) that Bar does  
indeed offer this method? The error indicates that it doesn''t, and  
from the code you''ve shown us I''d be surprised if it did -
it''s not
something you can do to normal ActiveRecord objects - you''d have to  
destroy a particular instance, for example, for the result of count  
to go down.

I think it might be easier for us if you can show us an example  
that''s closer to what you''re actually trying to do.

cheers,
Matt
----
http://blog.mattwynne.net
http://songkick.com

In case you wondered: The opinions expressed in this email are my own  
and do not necessarily reflect the views of any former, current or  
future employers of mine.

El jue, 25-09-2008 a las 10:27 +0100, Matt Wynne
escribi?:
> You''re expecting the Bar class to implement an interface which  
> supports you calling count -= 1 on it.
> 
> Have you checked (for example, using script/console) that Bar does  
> indeed offer this method? The error indicates that it doesn''t, and
> from the code you''ve shown us I''d be surprised if it did
- it''s not
> something you can do to normal ActiveRecord objects - you''d have
to
> destroy a particular instance, for example, for the result of count  
> to go down.
> 
> I think it might be easier for us if you can show us an example  
> that''s closer to what you''re actually trying to do.
> 
> cheers,
> Matt
> ----
> http://blog.mattwynne.net
> http://songkick.com
> 
> In case you wondered: The opinions expressed in this email are my own  
> and do not necessarily reflect the views of any former, current or  
> future employers of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Ok. I''m coding a web application called: SFO (Soccer Football Online).
This project it''s like game Football Manager, but all players are
humans. Now, I''m coding the Class Alineado, here''s the Model
of this
Class:

# == Schema Information
# Schema version: 20080923152754
#
# Table name: alineados
#
#  id          :integer         not null, primary key
#  club_id     :integer         not null
#  jugador_id  :integer         not null
#  partido_id  :integer         not null
#  posicion    :integer         not null
#  entrada     :integer         
#  salida      :integer         
#  alineado_id :integer         
#

class Alineado < ActiveRecord::Base  #This class would be Foo.
  belongs_to :club
  has_many :jugadores
  belongs_to :partido
  has_one :alineado
  validates_presence_of :club_id, :jugador_id, :partido_id, :posicion
  
  
  def jugando?
    !entrada.nil? and entrada <= self.partido.minuto and salida.nil?
  end
  
  def sustituido?
    !salida.nil? and salida <= self.partido.minuto
  end
  
  def banquillo?
    entrada.nil? or sustituido? or !jugando?
  end
  
  def sustituido_por?
    self.alineado
  end
  
  def cambiar_por(jugador_entrante) #This would be the method foo of Foo
class
    cambio = false
    if jugador_entrante.banquillo? && !jugador_entrante.sustituido?
&&
        jugador_entrante.club_id == self.club_id
      if club_id == self.partido.local 
        if self.partido.cambios_local > 0
          self.partido.cambios_local -= 1 #and this would be the
operation self.bar.count -= 1
          cambio = true
        end
      else #el jugador es del equipo visitante
        if self.partido.cambios_visitante > 0
          self.partido.cambios_visitante -= 1 #same operation
          cambio = true
        end
      end
    end
    
    if cambio
      self.salida = self.partido.minuto
      jugador_entrante.entrada = self.partido.minuto
    end
    
    cambio
  end
  
  def validate
    errors.add(:entrada, "no debe ser menor que 0 si est? jugando") if
!
entrada.nil? and entrada < 0
    errors.add(:entrada, "no debe ser mayor que el minuto actual") if
!
entrada.nil? and self.entrada > self.partido.minuto
    errors.add(:entrada, "no debe tener una entrada mayor o igual que la
salida al partido") if !entrada.nil?  and !salida.nil? and entrada
>salida
    errors.add(:salida, "no debe haber sustituido si no ha entrado al
partido") if entrada.nil? and !salida.nil?
  end
end

#partido.rb 
Class Partido < ActiveRecord::Base #This would be the class Bar
end

#alineado_spec.rb
module AlineadoSpecHelper
  def atributos_validos(partido=nil, jugador=1, club=1, posicion=1)
    {
      :club_id => club,
      :jugador_id => jugador,
      :partido => partido,
      :posicion => posicion
    }
  end
end

describe Alineado, ".cambiar_por" do
  include AlineadoSpecHelper
  
  before(:each) do
    @partido = mock(Partido)
    @partido.stub!(''local'').and_return(:equipo_local)
    @partido.stub!(''visitante'').and_return(:equipo_visitante)
    @partido.stub!(''minuto'').and_return(20)
  end
  
  describe "with the game in play and sustitutions aviable" do
    before(:each) do
      @partido.stub!(''cambios_local'').and_return(3)
      @partido.stub!(''cambios_visitante'').and_return(3)
      @jugador_sustituido = Alineado.new(atributos_validos(@partido, 
          :jugador_sustituido, :equipo_local))
      @jugador_sustituido.entrada = 0
      @jugador_entrante = Alineado.new(atributos_validos(@partido, 
          :jugador_entrante, :equipo_local))
      @cambios_antes = @partido.cambios_local
    end

    it "should decrement in one the sustitutions aviables" do
      @jugador_sustituido.cambiar_por(@jugador_entrante)
      @partido.cambios_local.should eql(@cambios_antes - 1)
    end
end

And I got this error:

4)
Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''Alineado.cambiar_por with the
game
in play and sustitutions aviable should decrement in one the
sustitutions aviables''
Mock ''Partido_1004'' received unexpected message
:cambios_visitante= with
(2)
/home/carlos/NetBeansProjects/ofs/app/models/alineado.rb:53:in
`cambiar_por''
spec/models/alineado_spec.rb:263:
spec/models/alineado_spec.rb:193:

And I don''t know how fix this error. It''s possible test this?

P.D.: Sorry for my english.

On 25 Sep 2008, at 11:51, Carlos Rafael Beliz?n Ib??ez
wrote:
> And I got this error:
>
> 4)
> Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''Alineado.cambiar_por with
the
> game
> in play and sustitutions aviable should decrement in one the
> sustitutions aviables''
> Mock ''Partido_1004'' received unexpected message
:cambios_visitante=
> with
> (2)
> /home/carlos/NetBeansProjects/ofs/app/models/alineado.rb:53:in
> `cambiar_por''
> spec/models/alineado_spec.rb:263:
> spec/models/alineado_spec.rb:193:
>
> And I don''t know how fix this error. It''s possible test
this?
>
> P.D.: Sorry for my english.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

Have a look at this:
http://gist.github.com/12805

When you call foo -= 1, ruby does two things:

(1) asks foo for its value
(2) tells foo to have a new value, one less than the answer it got  
back from the first question.

If you re-write more verbosely, you''ll see what I mean:

foo = foo - 1

Two operations are being done to foo. So if you want to mock out foo,  
you have to mock out both those operations.

Make sense?

cheers,
Matt
----
http://blog.mattwynne.net
http://songkick.com

In case you wondered: The opinions expressed in this email are my own  
and do not necessarily reflect the views of any former, current or  
future employers of mine.

El jue, 25-09-2008 a las 12:44 +0100, Matt Wynne
escribi?:
> 
> 
> Have a look at this:
> http://gist.github.com/12805
> 
> When you call foo -= 1, ruby does two things:
> 
> (1) asks foo for its value
> (2) tells foo to have a new value, one less than the answer it got  
> back from the first question.
> 
> If you re-write more verbosely, you''ll see what I mean:
> 
> foo = foo - 1
> 
> Two operations are being done to foo. So if you want to mock out foo,  
> you have to mock out both those operations.
> 
> Make sense?
> 
> cheers,
> Matt
> ----
> http://blog.mattwynne.net
> http://songkick.com
> 
> In case you wondered: The opinions expressed in this email are my own  
> and do not necessarily reflect the views of any former, current or  
> future employers of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Thanks. I''m understand what I must do to test this type specifications.
I changed my code and now it''s work fine, but I have one question:

What way it''s better to test this method? Using a real instance of
game,
or using a mock?

Thanks ;).

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Carlos Rafael Beliz?n Ib??ez
<paliyoes at gmail.com> wrote:
> El jue, 25-09-2008 a las 12:44 +0100, Matt Wynne escribi?:
>>
>>
>> Have a look at this:
>> http://gist.github.com/12805
>>
>> When you call foo -= 1, ruby does two things:
>>
>> (1) asks foo for its value
>> (2) tells foo to have a new value, one less than the answer it got
>> back from the first question.
>>
>> If you re-write more verbosely, you''ll see what I mean:
>>
>> foo = foo - 1
>>
>> Two operations are being done to foo. So if you want to mock out foo,
>> you have to mock out both those operations.
>>
>> Make sense?
>>
>> cheers,
>> Matt
>> ----
>> http://blog.mattwynne.net
>> http://songkick.com
>>
>> In case you wondered: The opinions expressed in this email are my own
>> and do not necessarily reflect the views of any former, current or
>> future employers of mine.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> Thanks. I''m understand what I must do to test this type
specifications.
> I changed my code and now it''s work fine, but I have one question:
>
> What way it''s better to test this method? Using a real instance of
game,
> or using a mock?
It''s difficult to say which one is better without more context. There
are risks, costs and benefits to each approach and they are not the
same in every situation. But I can give you some things to think about
and evaluate given the rest of your code base and where you are in the
process of developing it.

If the game has a lot of associations and validation requirements, it
could be complicated to set up in the code example (costing you time)
and expensive to run (costing you more time every time you run the
suite). This suggests using a mock might serve you better in that
situation, but if you do so without any higher level integration
tests, then you introduce the risk of having all of your code examples
pass but the application falls apart because you changed something in
the real Game that didn''t reveal itself via the mock Game.

Also, and this is both very important and very subtle, tools like
rspec and processes like TDD and BDD aren''t only about artifacts (the
resulting code), but they are about process. For example, if you
choose to develop a Lineup object before the Game object is developed,
using a mock Game can help you stay focused on the Lineup and also
help you to discover what APIs and services the real Game will need to
support.

Using mock objects as part of your process encourages a smaller
surface area and, therefore, a higher level of decoupling between
objects. First, since you don''t have a real object at hand, you can
not access its internals. Second, since you''re developing the API for
the Game (in this example) from the perspective of the Lineup that
uses it, you''re pushed to thinking of the surface of the Game and the
relationship between consumer and supplier (you could say client and
server, but those terms are overloaded). Discovering APIs by exploring
interactions is a great way to improve the chances that you get usable
APIs.

When you do this the other way, working on the Game first and thinking
"gee, I wonder what services other objects might need ... I''ll add
these 20 things ..." you end up with some APIs that totally hit the
mark, some that just miss the mark, resulting in either re-work or,
worse, living with a less than ideal API. And you end up with some
APIs that are just never, ever used.

All of that said, you''re working in a situation in which
you''ve
already developed the code and you are trying to backfill tests onto
it - the antithesis of TDD. So in this case you won''t get any of the
process and discovery benefits that you would had you developed things
test first. Which leaves you really deciding based on the risks of not
having your granular examples function as integration tests vs the
time it takes to run them.

That''s a lot, but I hope this is helpful.

Cheers,
David
>
> Thanks ;).
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

> What way it''s better to test this method? Using a real instance of
> game,
> or using a mock?
It basically depends on how complex Game is. In this simplistic  
example, there''s really no harm in testing both objects together at  
the same time, but nine times out of ten in the real world, you want  
to isolate your tests so that when a bug is introduced in Game it''s  
only the specs for Game that fail, and not the specs for anything else.

Mocks help with this by putting ''firewalls'' between the
classes
you''re testing, so you can be sure that you''re only testing a
single
class at once. Once you get the hang of them, they can also help you  
to think a little more about the interactions between your classes,  
and produce cleaner designs. The trade-off is that you need to keep  
the mocked behaviour consistent with the actual behaviour of the  
class being mocked.

It sounds as though you could benefit from reading about mocks. Check  
out the links at the bottom of this page:
http://rspec.info/documentation/mocks/

cheers,
Matt
----
http://blog.mattwynne.net
http://songkick.com

In case you wondered: The opinions expressed in this email are my own  
and do not necessarily reflect the views of any former, current or  
future employers of mine.

Thanks to both. I think that is more powerful use mocks in my project to
explain to the tribunal the benefits of use mocks and stubs against real
instances to test the code.

Thanks a lot ;).

Please open another thread to discuss your issue. This one is for 
setting request.domain while doing tests.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.