rspec users - Jan 2009 - [rspec] Stubbing partials in view specs

Hey list,

As a good BDDer I want to test my views in isolation. And as a good  
rails programmer, I separate views into partials when needed. So,  
when testing my views, I want to stub out rendering of partials in my  
views. I''m working on upgrading an app from rails 2.1.2 to 2.2.2,  
using the latest rspec and rspec-rails.

I used to throw template.stub!(:render) in a before(:each) block and  
be done with it, but that doesn''t work anymore. I can understand why,  
but now I have to do something like template.stub!(:render).with 
(hash_including(:partial => anything)). Except for when I''m testing
a
partial, then I need to replace the anything with every partial I''m  
rendering in my partial.

Is this the correct way, or is there perhaps something like  
template.stub_partials :only => [], :except => [] ?

thanks,
bartz

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Bart Zonneveld <zuperinfinite at
gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey list,
>
> As a good BDDer I want to test my views in isolation.
Sort of. A *good* BDDer wants to *specify* views in isolation. Testing
is for testers :)
> And as a good rails
> programmer, I separate views into partials when needed. So, when testing my
> views, I want to stub out rendering of partials in my views. I''m
working on
> upgrading an app from rails 2.1.2 to 2.2.2, using the latest rspec and
> rspec-rails.
>
> I used to throw template.stub!(:render) in a before(:each) block and be
done
> with it
That sounds kinda risky because you could be ignoring partials that
get rendered that you don''t want to be rendered.
>, but that doesn''t work anymore. I can understand why, but now I
have
> to do something like template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including(:partial
=>
> anything)). Except for when I''m testing a partial, then I need to
replace
> the anything with every partial I''m rendering in my partial.
>
> Is this the correct way,
Seems like the only way at the moment. Wouldn''t call it correct or
incorrect.
> or is there perhaps something like
> template.stub_partials :only => [], :except => [] ?
Nothing like this exists. Seems like a reasonable idea. Feel free to
submit a feature request, or better yet, a patch to
http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com

Cheers,
David
>
> thanks,
> bartz
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On 20-jan-2009, at 15:29, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Bart Zonneveld  
> <zuperinfinite at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey list,
>>
>> As a good BDDer I want to test my views in isolation.
>
> Sort of. A *good* BDDer wants to *specify* views in isolation. Testing
> is for testers :)
You''re right! I tend to talk a lot to non-programmers, and they get  
that glaze-in-the-distance look in their eyes, whenever I mention  
specifiy, spec''ing, or what have you :).
>> And as a good rails
>> programmer, I separate views into partials when needed. So, when  
>> testing my
>> views, I want to stub out rendering of partials in my views.
I''m
>> working on
>> upgrading an app from rails 2.1.2 to 2.2.2, using the latest rspec  
>> and
>> rspec-rails.
>>
>> I used to throw template.stub!(:render) in a before(:each) block  
>> and be done
>> with it
>
> That sounds kinda risky because you could be ignoring partials that
> get rendered that you don''t want to be rendered.
It is, most definately.
>> , but that doesn''t work anymore. I can understand why, but now
I have
>> to do something like template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including 
>> (:partial =>
>> anything)). Except for when I''m testing a partial, then I need
to
>> replace
>> the anything with every partial I''m rendering in my partial.
>>
>> Is this the correct way,
>
> Seems like the only way at the moment. Wouldn''t call it correct or
> incorrect.
I would call it ugly :). Not only do I have to remember the  
hash_including part, but also the anything (and not :anything).
Conceptually, I like the template.stub!(:render). I render a  
template, on which I stub all the renders. Whether that''s risky or  
not is a different discussion.
>> or is there perhaps something like
>> template.stub_partials :only => [], :except => [] ?
>
> Nothing like this exists. Seems like a reasonable idea. Feel free to
> submit a feature request, or better yet, a patch to
> http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com
Will do!

cheers,
bartz

Hello,
I have a problem similar to one mentioned in this post.
I call a partial inside another partial.
_mother.haml contains:
render :partial => "children/child"

In mother_spec.rb file I am trying to stub the render call.
Here is a working version:
============    template.should_receive(:render)
    template.stub!(:render)

    render :partial => ''mother''
===========I would prefer to specify that the partial I am stubbing is
"children/
child",
however the following code doesn''t work for me:
==========    template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including(:partial =>
''children/
child''))
    template.expect_render(:partial => ''children/child'')

    render :partial => ''mother''

: Mock ''render_proxy'' expected :render with
({:partial=>"children/
child"}) once, but received it 0 times
==========Is it possible to stub the render call with specific partial name?

Thank you in advance,
Evgeny

On Jan 20, 5:35?pm, Bart Zonneveld <zuperinfin... at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 20-jan-2009, at 15:29, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Bart Zonneveld ?
> > <zuperinfin... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hey list,
>
> >> As a good BDDer I want to test my views in isolation.
>
> > Sort of. A *good* BDDer wants to *specify* views in isolation. Testing
> > is for testers :)
>
> You''re right! I tend to talk a lot to non-programmers, and they
get ?
> that glaze-in-the-distance look in their eyes, whenever I mention ?
> specifiy, spec''ing, or what have you :).
>
> >> And as a good rails
> >> programmer, I separate views into partials when needed. So, when ?
> >> testing my
> >> views, I want tostubout rendering of partials in my views.
I''m ?
> >> working on
> >> upgrading an app from rails 2.1.2 to 2.2.2, using the latest rspec
?
> >> and
> >> rspec-rails.
>
> >> I used to throw template.stub!(:render) in a before(:each) block ?
> >> and be done
> >> with it
>
> > That sounds kinda risky because you could be ignoring partials that
> > get rendered that you don''t want to be rendered.
>
> It is, most definately.
>
> >> , but that doesn''t work anymore. I can understand why,
but now I have
> >> to do something like template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including
> >> (:partial =>
> >> anything)). Except for when I''m testing a partial, then I
need to ?
> >> replace
> >> the anything with every partial I''m rendering in my
partial.
>
> >> Is this the correct way,
>
> > Seems like the only way at the moment. Wouldn''t call it
correct or ?
> > incorrect.
>
> I would call it ugly :). Not only do I have to remember the ?
> hash_including part, but also the anything (and not :anything).
> Conceptually, I like the template.stub!(:render). Irendera ?
> template, on which Istuball the renders. Whether that''s risky or ?
> not is a different discussion.
>
> >> or is there perhaps something like
> >> template.stub_partials :only => [], :except => [] ?
>
> > Nothing like this exists. Seems like a reasonable idea. Feel free to
> > submit a feature request, or better yet, a patch to
> >http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com
>
> Will do!
>
> cheers,
> bartz
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at
rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

Hey there Evgeny. My response is inline.
> I call a partial inside another partial.
> _mother.haml contains:
> render :partial => "children/child"
> In mother_spec.rb file I am trying to stub the render call.
> Here is a working version:
> ============> ? ?template.should_receive(:render)
> ? ?template.stub!(:render)
>
> ? ?render :partial => ''mother''
> ===========
If you set a method expectation on an object (IE:
template.should_receive(:render) ), you don''t need to stub the method
(IE: template.stub!(:render) isn''t needed).
> I would prefer to specify that the partial I am stubbing is "children/
> child",
> however the following code doesn''t work for me:
> ==========> ? ?template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including(:partial
=> ''children/
> child''))
> ? ?template.expect_render(:partial =>
''children/child'')
>
> ? ?render :partial => ''mother''
>
> : Mock ''render_proxy'' expected :render with
({:partial=>"children/
> child"}) once, but received it 0 times
> ==========> Is it possible to stub the render call with specific partial
name?
What I said above about method expectations and method stubs also
applies here. You should remove the call to #stub! .

However, I''d be inclined to use #should_receive rather than
#expect_render :

template.should_receive(:render).with :partial =>
''children/child''
render :partial => ''mother''

I haven''t written many view specs though, so maybe we''re
supposed to
use #expect_render .

I hope that helps. Cheers,
Nick

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Nick Hoffman <nick at deadorange.com>
wrote:
> Hey there Evgeny. My response is inline.
>
>> I call a partial inside another partial.
>> _mother.haml contains:
>> render :partial => "children/child"
>
>> In mother_spec.rb file I am trying to stub the render call.
>> Here is a working version:
>> ============>> ? ?template.should_receive(:render)
>> ? ?template.stub!(:render)
>>
>> ? ?render :partial => ''mother''
>> ===========>
> If you set a method expectation on an object (IE:
> template.should_receive(:render) ), you don''t need to stub the
method
> (IE: template.stub!(:render) isn''t needed).
>
>> I would prefer to specify that the partial I am stubbing is
"children/
>> child",
>> however the following code doesn''t work for me:
>> ==========>> ?
?template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including(:partial => ''children/
>> child''))
>> ? ?template.expect_render(:partial =>
''children/child'')
>>
>> ? ?render :partial => ''mother''
>>
>> : Mock ''render_proxy'' expected :render with
({:partial=>"children/
>> child"}) once, but received it 0 times
>> ==========>> Is it possible to stub the render call with specific
partial name?
>
> What I said above about method expectations and method stubs also
> applies here. You should remove the call to #stub! .
>
> However, I''d be inclined to use #should_receive rather than
#expect_render :
>
> template.should_receive(:render).with :partial =>
''children/child''
> render :partial => ''mother''
>
> I haven''t written many view specs though, so maybe we''re
supposed to
> use #expect_render .
#expect_render is deprecated prior to 1.2 and it has been removed 1.2.
You don''t want to use that. :)
>
> I hope that helps. Cheers,
> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>


-- 
Zach Dennis
http://www.continuousthinking.com
http://www.mutuallyhuman.com

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Evgeny Bogdanov
<evgeny.bogdanov at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> I have a problem similar to one mentioned in this post.
> I call a partial inside another partial.
> _mother.haml contains:
> render :partial => "children/child"
>
> In mother_spec.rb file I am trying to stub the render call.
> Here is a working version:
> ============> ? ?template.should_receive(:render)
> ? ?template.stub!(:render)
>
> ? ?render :partial => ''mother''
> ===========> I would prefer to specify that the partial I am stubbing is
"children/
> child",
> however the following code doesn''t work for me:
> ==========> ? ?template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including(:partial
=> ''children/
> child''))
> ? ?template.expect_render(:partial =>
''children/child'')
What version of rspec are you using? #expect_render has been removed
in rspec 1.2 and has been deprecated for a while before that so you
won''t want to rely on that unless you''re using an old version
of
rspec.
>
> ? ?render :partial => ''mother''
>
> : Mock ''render_proxy'' expected :render with
({:partial=>"children/
> child"}) once, but received it 0 times
> ==========> Is it possible to stub the render call with specific partial
name?
You had it right, hash including should work:
   template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including(:partial =>
"children/child"))

To stub all partials being rendered:
   template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including(:partial => anything))

HTH,

>
> Thank you in advance,
> Evgeny
>
> On Jan 20, 5:35?pm, Bart Zonneveld <zuperinfin... at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> On 20-jan-2009, at 15:29, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Bart Zonneveld
>> > <zuperinfin... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Hey list,
>>
>> >> As a good BDDer I want to test my views in isolation.
>>
>> > Sort of. A *good* BDDer wants to *specify* views in isolation.
Testing
>> > is for testers :)
>>
>> You''re right! I tend to talk a lot to non-programmers, and
they get
>> that glaze-in-the-distance look in their eyes, whenever I mention
>> specifiy, spec''ing, or what have you :).
>>
>> >> And as a good rails
>> >> programmer, I separate views into partials when needed. So,
when
>> >> testing my
>> >> views, I want tostubout rendering of partials in my views.
I''m
>> >> working on
>> >> upgrading an app from rails 2.1.2 to 2.2.2, using the latest
rspec
>> >> and
>> >> rspec-rails.
>>
>> >> I used to throw template.stub!(:render) in a before(:each)
block
>> >> and be done
>> >> with it
>>
>> > That sounds kinda risky because you could be ignoring partials
that
>> > get rendered that you don''t want to be rendered.
>>
>> It is, most definately.
>>
>> >> , but that doesn''t work anymore. I can understand
why, but now I have
>> >> to do something like
template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including
>> >> (:partial =>
>> >> anything)). Except for when I''m testing a partial,
then I need to
>> >> replace
>> >> the anything with every partial I''m rendering in my
partial.
>>
>> >> Is this the correct way,
>>
>> > Seems like the only way at the moment. Wouldn''t call it
correct or
>> > incorrect.
>>
>> I would call it ugly :). Not only do I have to remember the
>> hash_including part, but also the anything (and not :anything).
>> Conceptually, I like the template.stub!(:render). Irendera
>> template, on which Istuball the renders. Whether that''s risky
or
>> not is a different discussion.
>>
>> >> or is there perhaps something like
>> >> template.stub_partials :only => [], :except => [] ?
>>
>> > Nothing like this exists. Seems like a reasonable idea. Feel free
to
>> > submit a feature request, or better yet, a patch to
>> >http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com
>>
>> Will do!
>>
>> cheers,
>> bartz
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-us... at
rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>


-- 
Zach Dennis
http://www.continuousthinking.com
http://www.mutuallyhuman.com

just upgraded to 1.2.0
the following code works now:

    template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including(:partial => "children/
child"))
    template.should_receive(:render).with(hash_including(:partial =>
"children/child"))

The only question that is left for me is about Nick''s words:
"If you set a method expectation on an object (IE:
template.should_receive(:render) ), you don''t need to stub the method
(IE: template.stub!(:render) isn''t needed)."

Basically, there are two situation.
1) I want to check if a function was called and I want to execute the
function code
2) I want to check if a function was called and I don''t want to
execute the function code so I used stubbing.

I thought that for the first scenario the solution would be:
template.should_receive(:render) #only checks if render function was
called

and for the second scenario
template.stub!(:render) #stub render function
template.should_receive(:render) #check if render function was called

Am I right?

Thanks,
Evgeny

On Mar 18, 11:23?pm, Zach Dennis <zach.den... at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Evgeny Bogdanov
>
>
>
> <evgeny.bogda... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I have a problem similar to one mentioned in this post.
> > I call a partial inside another partial.
> > _mother.haml contains:
> > render :partial => "children/child"
>
> > In mother_spec.rb file I am trying to stub the render call.
> > Here is a working version:
> > ============> > ? ?template.should_receive(:render)
> > ? ?template.stub!(:render)
>
> > ? ?render :partial => ''mother''
> > ===========> > I would prefer to specify that the partial I am
stubbing is "children/
> > child",
> > however the following code doesn''t work for me:
> > ==========> > ?
?template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including(:partial => ''children/
> > child''))
> > ? ?template.expect_render(:partial =>
''children/child'')
>
> What version of rspec are you using? #expect_render has been removed
> in rspec 1.2 and has been deprecated for a while before that so you
> won''t want to rely on that unless you''re using an old
version of
> rspec.
>
>
>
> > ? ?render :partial => ''mother''
>
> > : Mock ''render_proxy'' expected :render with
({:partial=>"children/
> > child"}) once, but received it 0 times
> > ==========> > Is it possible to stub the render call with
specific partial name?
>
> You had it right, hash including should work:
> ? ?template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including(:partial =>
"children/child"))
>
> To stub all partials being rendered:
> ? ?template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including(:partial => anything))
>
> HTH,
>
>
>
>
>
> > Thank you in advance,
> > Evgeny
>
> > On Jan 20, 5:35?pm, Bart Zonneveld <zuperinfin... at gmail.com>
wrote:
> >> On 20-jan-2009, at 15:29, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> >> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Bart Zonneveld
> >> > <zuperinfin... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Hey list,
>
> >> >> As a good BDDer I want to test my views in isolation.
>
> >> > Sort of. A *good* BDDer wants to *specify* views in
isolation. Testing
> >> > is for testers :)
>
> >> You''re right! I tend to talk a lot to non-programmers,
and they get
> >> that glaze-in-the-distance look in their eyes, whenever I mention
> >> specifiy, spec''ing, or what have you :).
>
> >> >> And as a good rails
> >> >> programmer, I separate views into partials when needed.
So, when
> >> >> testing my
> >> >> views, I want tostubout rendering of partials in my
views. I''m
> >> >> working on
> >> >> upgrading an app from rails 2.1.2 to 2.2.2, using the
latest rspec
> >> >> and
> >> >> rspec-rails.
>
> >> >> I used to throw template.stub!(:render) in a
before(:each) block
> >> >> and be done
> >> >> with it
>
> >> > That sounds kinda risky because you could be ignoring
partials that
> >> > get rendered that you don''t want to be rendered.
>
> >> It is, most definately.
>
> >> >> , but that doesn''t work anymore. I can
understand why, but now I have
> >> >> to do something like
template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including
> >> >> (:partial =>
> >> >> anything)). Except for when I''m testing a
partial, then I need to
> >> >> replace
> >> >> the anything with every partial I''m rendering in
my partial.
>
> >> >> Is this the correct way,
>
> >> > Seems like the only way at the moment. Wouldn''t call
it correct or
> >> > incorrect.
>
> >> I would call it ugly :). Not only do I have to remember the
> >> hash_including part, but also the anything (and not :anything).
> >> Conceptually, I like the template.stub!(:render). Irendera
> >> template, on which Istuball the renders. Whether that''s
risky or
> >> not is a different discussion.
>
> >> >> or is there perhaps something like
> >> >> template.stub_partials :only => [], :except => [] ?
>
> >> > Nothing like this exists. Seems like a reasonable idea. Feel
free to
> >> > submit a feature request, or better yet, a patch to
> >> >http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com
>
> >> Will do!
>
> >> cheers,
> >> bartz
>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rspec-users mailing list
> >> rspec-us... at
rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> --
> Zach Dennishttp://www.continuousthinking.comhttp://www.mutuallyhuman.com
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at
rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

On Mar 19, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Evgeny Bogdanov  
<evgeny.bogdanov at gmail.com> wrote:
> just upgraded to 1.2.0
> the following code works now:
>
>    template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including(:partial =>
"children/
> child"))
>    template.should_receive(:render).with(hash_including(:partial =>
> "children/child"))
>
> The only question that is left for me is about Nick''s words:
> "If you set a method expectation on an object (IE:
> template.should_receive(:render) ), you don''t need to stub the
method
> (IE: template.stub!(:render) isn''t needed)."
>
> Basically, there are two situation.
> 1) I want to check if a function was called and I want to execute the
> function code
> 2) I want to check if a function was called and I don''t want to
> execute the function code so I used stubbing.
>
> I thought that for the first scenario the solution would be:
> template.should_receive(:render) #only checks if render function was
> called
>
> and for the second scenario
> template.stub!(:render) #stub render function
> template.should_receive(:render) #check if render function was called
>
> Am I right?
No. What I think you''re describing is called a test spy: a means of  
monitoring interactions without changing the behavior. RSpec''s mocks  
don''t provide this. The only ruby framework I''m aware of that
does is
RR. There may be others.

A stub (stubs!) overrides an existing method (if one exists) and  
returns either self or any value you define with and_returns.

A message expectation, or mocked method (should_receive) does the same  
thing *plus* it verifies that the message was called.

HTH,
David
>
>
> Thanks,
> Evgeny
>
> On Mar 18, 11:23 pm, Zach Dennis <zach.den... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Evgeny Bogdanov
>>
>>
>>
>> <evgeny.bogda... at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> I have a problem similar to one mentioned in this post.
>>> I call a partial inside another partial.
>>> _mother.haml contains:
>>> render :partial => "children/child"
>>
>>> In mother_spec.rb file I am trying to stub the render call.
>>> Here is a working version:
>>> ============>>>    template.should_receive(:render)
>>>    template.stub!(:render)
>>
>>>    render :partial => ''mother''
>>> ===========>>> I would prefer to specify that the partial
I am stubbing is
>>> "children/
>>> child",
>>> however the following code doesn''t work for me:
>>> ==========>>>   
template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including(:partial =>
>>> ''children/
>>> child''))
>>>    template.expect_render(:partial =>
''children/child'')
>>
>> What version of rspec are you using? #expect_render has been removed
>> in rspec 1.2 and has been deprecated for a while before that so you
>> won''t want to rely on that unless you''re using an old
version of
>> rspec.
>>
>>
>>
>>>    render :partial => ''mother''
>>
>>> : Mock ''render_proxy'' expected :render with
({:partial=>"children/
>>> child"}) once, but received it 0 times
>>> ==========>>> Is it possible to stub the render call with
specific partial name?
>>
>> You had it right, hash including should work:
>>    template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including(:partial =>  
>> "children/child"))
>>
>> To stub all partials being rendered:
>>    template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including(:partial =>
anything))
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thank you in advance,
>>> Evgeny
>>
>>> On Jan 20, 5:35 pm, Bart Zonneveld <zuperinfin... at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 20-jan-2009, at 15:29, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Bart Zonneveld
>>>>> <zuperinfin... at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hey list,
>>
>>>>>> As a good BDDer I want to test my views in isolation.
>>
>>>>> Sort of. A *good* BDDer wants to *specify* views in
isolation.
>>>>> Testing
>>>>> is for testers :)
>>
>>>> You''re right! I tend to talk a lot to non-programmers,
and they get
>>>> that glaze-in-the-distance look in their eyes, whenever I
mention
>>>> specifiy, spec''ing, or what have you :).
>>
>>>>>> And as a good rails
>>>>>> programmer, I separate views into partials when needed.
So, when
>>>>>> testing my
>>>>>> views, I want tostubout rendering of partials in my
views. I''m
>>>>>> working on
>>>>>> upgrading an app from rails 2.1.2 to 2.2.2, using the
latest
>>>>>> rspec
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> rspec-rails.
>>
>>>>>> I used to throw template.stub!(:render) in a
before(:each) block
>>>>>> and be done
>>>>>> with it
>>
>>>>> That sounds kinda risky because you could be ignoring
partials
>>>>> that
>>>>> get rendered that you don''t want to be rendered.
>>
>>>> It is, most definately.
>>
>>>>>> , but that doesn''t work anymore. I can
understand why, but now
>>>>>> I have
>>>>>> to do something like
template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including
>>>>>> (:partial =>
>>>>>> anything)). Except for when I''m testing a
partial, then I need to
>>>>>> replace
>>>>>> the anything with every partial I''m rendering
in my partial.
>>
>>>>>> Is this the correct way,
>>
>>>>> Seems like the only way at the moment. Wouldn''t
call it correct or
>>>>> incorrect.
>>
>>>> I would call it ugly :). Not only do I have to remember the
>>>> hash_including part, but also the anything (and not :anything).
>>>> Conceptually, I like the template.stub!(:render). Irendera
>>>> template, on which Istuball the renders. Whether
that''s risky or
>>>> not is a different discussion.
>>
>>>>>> or is there perhaps something like
>>>>>> template.stub_partials :only => [], :except => []
?
>>
>>>>> Nothing like this exists. Seems like a reasonable idea.
Feel
>>>>> free to
>>>>> submit a feature request, or better yet, a patch to
>>>>> http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com
>>
>>>> Will do!
>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> bartz
>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>>> rspec-us... at
rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/
>>>> rspec-users
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>> --
>> Zach
Dennishttp://www.continuousthinking.comhttp://www.mutuallyhuman.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
>> rspec-users
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

> Basically, there are two situation.
> 1) I want to check if a function was called and I want to execute the
> function code
I don''t think that''s possible. Setting a method expectation
(Eg:
template.should_receive(:render)) automatically stubs #render.
> 2) I want to check if a function was called and I don''t want to
> execute the function code so I used stubbing.
That''s how #should_receive works.
> I thought that for the first scenario the solution would be:
> template.should_receive(:render) #only checks if render function was
> called
You''re correct that the only thing that''s checked is whether
or not
#render was called on the "template" object. However, creating that
expectation causes RSpec to stub #render . If you want to confirm
this, call #render , and you''ll see that it returns nil. nil is the
default return value for a stubbed method.
> and for the second scenario
> template.stub!(:render) #stub render function
> template.should_receive(:render) #check if render function was called
Mostly! All you need is the call to #should_receive . The call to
#stub! doesn''t do anything bad...it just doesn''t do anything
at all.

Cheers,
Nick

On Mar 19, 2009, at 10:30 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Evgeny Bogdanov <evgeny.bogdanov at
gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> just upgraded to 1.2.0
>> the following code works now:
>>
>>   template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including(:partial =>
"children/
>> child"))
>>   template.should_receive(:render).with(hash_including(:partial =>
>> "children/child"))
>>
>> The only question that is left for me is about Nick''s words:
>> "If you set a method expectation on an object (IE:
>> template.should_receive(:render) ), you don''t need to stub the
method
>> (IE: template.stub!(:render) isn''t needed)."
>>
>> Basically, there are two situation.
>> 1) I want to check if a function was called and I want to execute the
>> function code
>> 2) I want to check if a function was called and I don''t want
to
>> execute the function code so I used stubbing.
>>
>> I thought that for the first scenario the solution would be:
>> template.should_receive(:render) #only checks if render function was
>> called
>>
>> and for the second scenario
>> template.stub!(:render) #stub render function
>> template.should_receive(:render) #check if render function was called
>>
>> Am I right?
>
> No. What I think you''re describing is called a test spy: a means
of
> monitoring interactions without changing the behavior. RSpec''s
mocks
> don''t provide this. The only ruby framework I''m aware of
that does
> is RR. There may be others.
>
"Before we exercise the SUT, we install a Test Spy as a stand-in for  
depended-on component (DOC) used by the SUT. The Test Spy is designed  
to act as an observation point by recording the method calls made to  
it by the SUT as it is exercised. During the result verification  
phase, the test compares the actual values passed to the Test Spy by  
the SUT with the values expected by the test. "

http://xunitpatterns.com/Test%20Spy.html

Actually, the "Not A Mock" framework also supports the test spy
pattern:

http://github.com/notahat/not_a_mock/tree/master

Scott

> A stub (stubs!) overrides an existing method (if one exists) and  
> returns either self or any value you define with and_returns.
>
> A message expectation, or mocked method (should_receive) does the  
> same thing *plus* it verifies that the message was called.
>
>
> HTH,
> David
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Evgeny
>>
>> On Mar 18, 11:23 pm, Zach Dennis <zach.den... at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Evgeny Bogdanov
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <evgeny.bogda... at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>> I have a problem similar to one mentioned in this post.
>>>> I call a partial inside another partial.
>>>> _mother.haml contains:
>>>> render :partial => "children/child"
>>>
>>>> In mother_spec.rb file I am trying to stub the render call.
>>>> Here is a working version:
>>>> ============>>>>   template.should_receive(:render)
>>>>   template.stub!(:render)
>>>
>>>>   render :partial => ''mother''
>>>> ===========>>>> I would prefer to specify that the
partial I am stubbing is
>>>> "children/
>>>> child",
>>>> however the following code doesn''t work for me:
>>>> ==========>>>>  
template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including(:partial =>
>>>> ''children/
>>>> child''))
>>>>   template.expect_render(:partial =>
''children/child'')
>>>
>>> What version of rspec are you using? #expect_render has been
removed
>>> in rspec 1.2 and has been deprecated for a while before that so you
>>> won''t want to rely on that unless you''re using an
old version of
>>> rspec.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>   render :partial => ''mother''
>>>
>>>> : Mock ''render_proxy'' expected :render with
({:partial=>"children/
>>>> child"}) once, but received it 0 times
>>>> ==========>>>> Is it possible to stub the render
call with specific partial name?
>>>
>>> You had it right, hash including should work:
>>>   template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including(:partial =>  
>>> "children/child"))
>>>
>>> To stub all partials being rendered:
>>>   template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including(:partial =>
anything))
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thank you in advance,
>>>> Evgeny
>>>
>>>> On Jan 20, 5:35 pm, Bart Zonneveld <zuperinfin... at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 20-jan-2009, at 15:29, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Bart Zonneveld
>>>>>> <zuperinfin... at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey list,
>>>
>>>>>>> As a good BDDer I want to test my views in
isolation.
>>>
>>>>>> Sort of. A *good* BDDer wants to *specify* views in
isolation.
>>>>>> Testing
>>>>>> is for testers :)
>>>
>>>>> You''re right! I tend to talk a lot to
non-programmers, and they
>>>>> get
>>>>> that glaze-in-the-distance look in their eyes, whenever I
mention
>>>>> specifiy, spec''ing, or what have you :).
>>>
>>>>>>> And as a good rails
>>>>>>> programmer, I separate views into partials when
needed. So, when
>>>>>>> testing my
>>>>>>> views, I want tostubout rendering of partials in my
views. I''m
>>>>>>> working on
>>>>>>> upgrading an app from rails 2.1.2 to 2.2.2, using
the latest
>>>>>>> rspec
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> rspec-rails.
>>>
>>>>>>> I used to throw template.stub!(:render) in a
before(:each) block
>>>>>>> and be done
>>>>>>> with it
>>>
>>>>>> That sounds kinda risky because you could be ignoring
partials
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> get rendered that you don''t want to be
rendered.
>>>
>>>>> It is, most definately.
>>>
>>>>>>> , but that doesn''t work anymore. I can
understand why, but now
>>>>>>> I have
>>>>>>> to do something like
template.stub!(:render).with(hash_including
>>>>>>> (:partial =>
>>>>>>> anything)). Except for when I''m testing a
partial, then I need
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> replace
>>>>>>> the anything with every partial I''m
rendering in my partial.
>>>
>>>>>>> Is this the correct way,
>>>
>>>>>> Seems like the only way at the moment.
Wouldn''t call it correct
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>
>>>>> I would call it ugly :). Not only do I have to remember the
>>>>> hash_including part, but also the anything (and not
:anything).
>>>>> Conceptually, I like the template.stub!(:render). Irendera
>>>>> template, on which Istuball the renders. Whether
that''s risky or
>>>>> not is a different discussion.
>>>
>>>>>>> or is there perhaps something like
>>>>>>> template.stub_partials :only => [], :except
=> [] ?
>>>
>>>>>> Nothing like this exists. Seems like a reasonable idea.
Feel
>>>>>> free to
>>>>>> submit a feature request, or better yet, a patch to
>>>>>> http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com
>>>
>>>>> Will do!
>>>
>>>>> cheers,
>>>>> bartz
>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>>>> rspec-us... at
rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>>> rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
>>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>
>>> --
>>> Zach
Dennishttp://www.continuousthinking.comhttp://www.mutuallyhuman.com
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-us... at
rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users