rspec users - Dec 2007 - mock libraries, Object#send, and Object#__send__

What is the appropriate way to stub out (and put an expectation on  
Object#__send__), without getting warnings from the Rspec mock library?

Scott

On Dec 6, 2007 3:37 PM, Scott Taylor <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com>
wrote:
>
>
> What is the appropriate way to stub out (and put an expectation on
> Object#__send__), without getting warnings from the Rspec mock library?
Come on Scott - you know better than that :)

Error please?
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On Dec 6, 2007, at 4:41 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2007 3:37 PM, Scott Taylor  
> <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> What is the appropriate way to stub out (and put an expectation on
>> Object#__send__), without getting warnings from the Rspec mock  
>> library?
>
> Come on Scott - you know better than that :)
>
> Error please?
Not an error, just a warning.  And I should have written my  
description better.  Basically, I wanted to make sure that my library  
didn''t call send, but instead __send__.  I tried something like this:

    before :each do
       @caller = Object.new
       @caller.stub!(:send).and_raise
       @caller.stub!(:__send__)

     end

     it "should be able to send the message with __send__" do
       @caller.should_not_receive(:send)
       @caller.should_receive(:__send__)

       @attributes.to_new_class_instance({}, @caller)
     end


The @caller object is a sort of mock object.  I would have used a  
real mock object, except that stubbing send on a mock object didn''t  
seem to do anything.

The warning was this:

./usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-1.0.8/lib/spec/mocks/ 
proxy.rb:99: warning: redefining `__send__'' may cause serious problem

Just wondering about what you would recommend for this.  Let me know  
if you need more context.

Scott

On Dec 6, 2007 4:08 PM, Scott Taylor <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com>
wrote:
>
> On Dec 6, 2007, at 4:41 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> > On Dec 6, 2007 3:37 PM, Scott Taylor
> > <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> What is the appropriate way to stub out (and put an expectation on
> >> Object#__send__), without getting warnings from the Rspec mock
> >> library?
> >
> > Come on Scott - you know better than that :)
> >
> > Error please?
>
> Not an error, just a warning.  And I should have written my
> description better.  Basically, I wanted to make sure that my library
> didn''t call send, but instead __send__.  I tried something like
this:
>
>     before :each do
>        @caller = Object.new
>        @caller.stub!(:send).and_raise
>        @caller.stub!(:__send__)
>
>      end
>
>      it "should be able to send the message with __send__" do
>        @caller.should_not_receive(:send)
>        @caller.should_receive(:__send__)
>
>        @attributes.to_new_class_instance({}, @caller)
>      end
>
>
> The @caller object is a sort of mock object.  I would have used a
> real mock object, except that stubbing send on a mock object
didn''t
> seem to do anything.
>
> The warning was this:
>
> ./usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-1.0.8/lib/spec/mocks/
> proxy.rb:99: warning: redefining `__send__'' may cause serious
problem
I LOVE that it says "may cause serious problem" - not
"problems"

Anyhow - I''m not sure what we can do about that. RSpec''s stubs
work by
redefining existing methods. Ruby doesn''t want you to do that with
__send__. For the moment, there''s no way around it, but I''m
not even
sure what we could change in RSpec to make it work. Any ideas?
>
> Just wondering about what you would recommend for this.  Let me know
> if you need more context.
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On Dec 6, 2007, at 5:12 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2007 4:08 PM, Scott Taylor  
> <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 6, 2007, at 4:41 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 6, 2007 3:37 PM, Scott Taylor
>>> <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is the appropriate way to stub out (and put an expectation
on
>>>> Object#__send__), without getting warnings from the Rspec mock
>>>> library?
>>>
>>> Come on Scott - you know better than that :)
>>>
>>> Error please?
>>
>> Not an error, just a warning.  And I should have written my
>> description better.  Basically, I wanted to make sure that my library
>> didn''t call send, but instead __send__.  I tried something
like this:
>>
>>     before :each do
>>        @caller = Object.new
>>        @caller.stub!(:send).and_raise
>>        @caller.stub!(:__send__)
>>
>>      end
>>
>>      it "should be able to send the message with __send__" do
>>        @caller.should_not_receive(:send)
>>        @caller.should_receive(:__send__)
>>
>>        @attributes.to_new_class_instance({}, @caller)
>>      end
>>
>>
>> The @caller object is a sort of mock object.  I would have used a
>> real mock object, except that stubbing send on a mock object
didn''t
>> seem to do anything.
>>
>> The warning was this:
>>
>> ./usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-1.0.8/lib/spec/mocks/
>> proxy.rb:99: warning: redefining `__send__'' may cause serious
problem
>
> I LOVE that it says "may cause serious problem" - not
"problems"
>
> Anyhow - I''m not sure what we can do about that. RSpec''s
stubs work by
> redefining existing methods. Ruby doesn''t want you to do that with
> __send__. For the moment, there''s no way around it, but
I''m not even
> sure what we could change in RSpec to make it work. Any ideas?
Ah - so it''s actually something ruby does, and not the mock library.   
I hadn''t realized that.

I''m not sure this is the best idea, but we could actually remove the  
warning:

     def execute_silently(&blk)
       old_warning_level = $VERBOSE
       $VERBOSE = nil
       yield
       $VERBOSE = old_warning_level
     end


(or I could do this myself, in my own specs)

Scott

On Dec 6, 2007 4:22 PM, Scott Taylor <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 6, 2007, at 5:12 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> > On Dec 6, 2007 4:08 PM, Scott Taylor
> > <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Dec 6, 2007, at 4:41 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Dec 6, 2007 3:37 PM, Scott Taylor
> >>> <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What is the appropriate way to stub out (and put an
expectation on
> >>>> Object#__send__), without getting warnings from the Rspec
mock
> >>>> library?
> >>>
> >>> Come on Scott - you know better than that :)
> >>>
> >>> Error please?
> >>
> >> Not an error, just a warning.  And I should have written my
> >> description better.  Basically, I wanted to make sure that my
library
> >> didn''t call send, but instead __send__.  I tried
something like this:
> >>
> >>     before :each do
> >>        @caller = Object.new
> >>        @caller.stub!(:send).and_raise
> >>        @caller.stub!(:__send__)
> >>
> >>      end
> >>
> >>      it "should be able to send the message with
__send__" do
> >>        @caller.should_not_receive(:send)
> >>        @caller.should_receive(:__send__)
> >>
> >>        @attributes.to_new_class_instance({}, @caller)
> >>      end
> >>
> >>
> >> The @caller object is a sort of mock object.  I would have used a
> >> real mock object, except that stubbing send on a mock object
didn''t
> >> seem to do anything.
> >>
> >> The warning was this:
> >>
> >> ./usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-1.0.8/lib/spec/mocks/
> >> proxy.rb:99: warning: redefining `__send__'' may cause
serious problem
> >
> > I LOVE that it says "may cause serious problem" - not
"problems"
> >
> > Anyhow - I''m not sure what we can do about that.
RSpec''s stubs work by
> > redefining existing methods. Ruby doesn''t want you to do that
with
> > __send__. For the moment, there''s no way around it, but
I''m not even
> > sure what we could change in RSpec to make it work. Any ideas?
>
> Ah - so it''s actually something ruby does, and not the mock
library.
> I hadn''t realized that.
>
> I''m not sure this is the best idea, but we could actually remove
the
> warning:
>
>      def execute_silently(&blk)
>        old_warning_level = $VERBOSE
>        $VERBOSE = nil
>        yield
>        $VERBOSE = old_warning_level
>      end
>
>
> (or I could do this myself, in my own specs)
I''d be happier if you did that yourself. I don''t want RSpec to
be in
the habit of hiding warnings.
>
>
> Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On Dec 6, 2007, at 5:25 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2007 4:22 PM, Scott Taylor  
> <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Dec 6, 2007, at 5:12 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 6, 2007 4:08 PM, Scott Taylor
>>> <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 6, 2007, at 4:41 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 6, 2007 3:37 PM, Scott Taylor
>>>>> <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the appropriate way to stub out (and put an  
>>>>>> expectation on
>>>>>> Object#__send__), without getting warnings from the
Rspec mock
>>>>>> library?
>>>>>
<snip>...</snip>
>> I''m not sure this is the best idea, but we could actually
remove the
>> warning:
>>
>>      def execute_silently(&blk)
>>        old_warning_level = $VERBOSE
>>        $VERBOSE = nil
>>        yield
>>        $VERBOSE = old_warning_level
>>      end
>>
>>
>> (or I could do this myself, in my own specs)
>
> I''d be happier if you did that yourself. I don''t want
RSpec to be in
> the habit of hiding warnings.
>
Yep.  I don''t disagree with you (especially now that I know that the  
warning comes from ruby itself).  Originally I thought that maybe the  
mock library used __send__, and issued a warning if you tried to stub  
it.

Scott