rspec users - Feb 2007 - How can I spec this? The method gets passed a block...

I''m using Jim Weirich''s Builder library.  The code I want to
spec is

    xml.video do
      xml.id @video_id
      xml.views @views
      xml.date(@date.to_s) if @date
    end

I''d like to mock it, rather than asserting that the XML is the right
string.  I can do one spec:

  specify "should create a video tag" do
    @mock_builder.should_receive(:video)
    do_report
  end

but I can''t do anything else.  Setting an expectation for :id, :views,
and :date all fail.  It''s obvious to me why it does...the stubbed
:video method doesn''t know to execute the stuff in the block.  So
what''s the best way to spec this?

Pat

On 2/23/07, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> but I can''t do anything else.  Setting an expectation for :id,
:views,
> and :date all fail.  It''s obvious to me why it does...the stubbed
> :video method doesn''t know to execute the stuff in the block.  So
> what''s the best way to spec this?
Pat;

You can stub the view method in the mock and have it yield so that the
block runs:

  specify "should create a video tag" do
     @mock_builder.stub!(:video).and_yield
     @mock_builder.should_receive(:id)
     do_report
  end

Not really the cleanest solution for this spec since you really
shouldn''t care that view was called.  That''s why I stubbed it,
rather
than using should_receive.  Not sure how else you could get around it
though.


-- 
Lou.

On 2/23/07, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I''m using Jim Weirich''s Builder library.  The code I want
to spec is
>
>     xml.video do
>       xml.id @video_id
>       xml.views @views
>       xml.date(@date.to_s) if @date
>     end
>
> I''d like to mock it, rather than asserting that the XML is the
right
> string.  I can do one spec:
>
>   specify "should create a video tag" do
>     @mock_builder.should_receive(:video)
>     do_report
>   end
>
> but I can''t do anything else.  Setting an expectation for :id,
:views,
> and :date all fail.  It''s obvious to me why it does...the stubbed
> :video method doesn''t know to execute the stuff in the block.  So
> what''s the best way to spec this?
>
There is no "best" way to do anything, but in this case I think I
would avoid mocking the API I don''t own (builder).

I would mock the objects that builder *interacts* with, kick of
builder and expect the generated XML to eql some expected XML.

Makes sense?
> Pat
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On 2/24/07, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 2/23/07, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I''m using Jim Weirich''s Builder library.  The code I
want to spec is
> >
> >     xml.video do
> >       xml.id @video_id
> >       xml.views @views
> >       xml.date(@date.to_s) if @date
> >     end
> >
> > I''d like to mock it, rather than asserting that the XML is
the right
> > string.  I can do one spec:
> >
> >   specify "should create a video tag" do
> >     @mock_builder.should_receive(:video)
> >     do_report
> >   end
> >
> > but I can''t do anything else.  Setting an expectation for
:id, :views,
> > and :date all fail.  It''s obvious to me why it does...the
stubbed
> > :video method doesn''t know to execute the stuff in the block.
So
> > what''s the best way to spec this?
> >
>
> There is no "best" way to do anything, but in this case I think I
> would avoid mocking the API I don''t own (builder).
I had a feeling when I posted that you would chime in with this very answer :)
> I would mock the objects that builder *interacts* with, kick of
> builder and expect the generated XML to eql some expected XML.
I don''t really follow you here with the mocking.  What would I mock?
I''m trying to write an object that interacts with Builder, not the
other way around.

In this case, I guess I should just build out the XML and verify that
it''s what I expect.  The easiest way to do it is by converting it into
a Hash, which I know should work.

Something like:

specify "should generate the proper XML" do
  Hash.from_xml(do_report).should == { "video" => { "id"
=> "1",
"views" => "4" } }
end

How''s that?

On 2/24/07, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 2/24/07, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/23/07, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I''m using Jim Weirich''s Builder library.  The
code I want to spec is
> > >
> > >     xml.video do
> > >       xml.id @video_id
> > >       xml.views @views
> > >       xml.date(@date.to_s) if @date
> > >     end
> > >
> > > I''d like to mock it, rather than asserting that the XML
is the right
> > > string.  I can do one spec:
> > >
> > >   specify "should create a video tag" do
> > >     @mock_builder.should_receive(:video)
> > >     do_report
> > >   end
> > >
> > > but I can''t do anything else.  Setting an expectation
for :id, :views,
> > > and :date all fail.  It''s obvious to me why it
does...the stubbed
> > > :video method doesn''t know to execute the stuff in the
block.  So
> > > what''s the best way to spec this?
> > >
> >
> > There is no "best" way to do anything, but in this case I
think I
> > would avoid mocking the API I don''t own (builder).
>
> I had a feeling when I posted that you would chime in with this very answer
:)
>
He he
> > I would mock the objects that builder *interacts* with, kick of
> > builder and expect the generated XML to eql some expected XML.
>
> I don''t really follow you here with the mocking.  What would I
mock?
> I''m trying to write an object that interacts with Builder, not the
> other way around.
>
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were trying to do.
> In this case, I guess I should just build out the XML and verify that
> it''s what I expect.  The easiest way to do it is by converting it
into
> a Hash, which I know should work.
>
> Something like:
>
> specify "should generate the proper XML" do
>   Hash.from_xml(do_report).should == { "video" => {
"id" => "1",
> "views" => "4" } }
> end
>
> How''s that?
Simple, brilliant.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>