mocha developer - Jun 2007 - With Parameter Block

I''m curious why the Parameter block check for the with is going to be  
removed.

I like the concept of clean, readable tests, however I also like to  
test as efficiently as possible. For some tests, I''ll take the  
approach of putting test assertions inside the parameter block, and  
always returning true.

This is a contrived example:

def test_something
   mock = mock("some_mock")
   mock.expects(:foo).with do | param_that_is_a_string,  
param_that_is_a_model |
     assert_match(/something-for1/, param_that_is_a_string)
     assert param_that_is_a_model.valid?
     true
   end.returns("blah")
end

Again, I''m not against code readability, but I do prefer to be able  
to write my tests explicitly instead of creating a matcher for each  
special case.

-Zach

Hi Zach,

I''m not fixed on the idea of the block check going away. It''s
great to have
your example usage. You are right that readability is one advantage of the
parameter matcher classes, but another benefit is hopefully more useful
error messages. Maybe the solution is to have a custom matcher which takes a
block. What do you think?

I''ll give it some more thought.
-- 
James.
http://blog.floehopper.org

James Mead wrote:
> Hi Zach,
>
> I''m not fixed on the idea of the block check going away.
It''s great to have
> your example usage. You are right that readability is one advantage of the
> parameter matcher classes, but another benefit is hopefully more useful
> error messages. Maybe the solution is to have a custom matcher which takes
a
> block. What do you think?
>
> I''ll give it some more thought.
>   
I agree - having a custom matcher that knows about procs is a cleaner 
solution than having the whole proc thing baked into expectations. 
Expecting a proc is an edge case when you are mostly mocking services. 
It''s normally simple value objects like strings that get passed in as 
parameters.

Cheers,
Dan

James,

Yeah that''s fine with me. I''m really swamped now, but
I''ll try and
work out something soon and submit a patch of what I''m thinking.

I do want give kudos to the team for developing a nice mocking  
library. It hasn''t been a silver bullet, but it does make my testing  
much easier.

-Zach

On Jun 22, 2007, at 8:26 AM, Dan North wrote:
> James Mead wrote:
>> Hi Zach,
>>
>> I''m not fixed on the idea of the block check going away.
It''s
>> great to have
>> your example usage. You are right that readability is one  
>> advantage of the
>> parameter matcher classes, but another benefit is hopefully more  
>> useful
>> error messages. Maybe the solution is to have a custom matcher  
>> which takes a
>> block. What do you think?
>>
>> I''ll give it some more thought.
>>
> I agree - having a custom matcher that knows about procs is a cleaner
> solution than having the whole proc thing baked into expectations.
> Expecting a proc is an edge case when you are mostly mocking services.
> It''s normally simple value objects like strings that get passed in
as
> parameters.
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> mocha-developer mailing list
> mocha-developer at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mocha-developer