Hi guys, I launched some days ago a new project that aims to make the use of mocks safer. This is the URL of project: https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock The basic idea is to make user define interfaces of classes, when user defines the class interface (which is something like defining method signatures on C or Java) Aidmock automatic generate some sanity check specs, these specs will verify if class has the method defined, and if it respect arity of interface. And more important, when user create mocks while developing specs, it will verify all defined mocks, and check if they are respecting defined interface. You can saw more about project motivation here(with some example of why it exists): https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock/wiki/Motivation This project is a kind of experimental one, with a different idea, and any feedback will be really welcome. Thanks --- Wilker L?cio http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio Kajabi Consultant +55 81 82556600 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20110116/7551fe4b/attachment.html>
On Jan 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Wilker wrote:> Hi guys, > > I launched some days ago a new project that aims to make the use of mocks > safer. > This is the URL of project: https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock > > The basic idea is to make user define interfaces of classes, when user > defines the class interface (which is something like defining method > signatures on C or Java) Aidmock automatic generate some sanity check > specs, these specs will verify if class has the method defined, and if > it respect arity of interface. > > And more important, when user create mocks while developing specs, it > will verify all defined mocks, and check if they are respecting > defined interface. > > You can saw more about project motivation here(with some example of > why it exists): https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock/wiki/Motivation > > This project is a kind of experimental one, with a different idea, and > any feedback will be really welcome.Hi Wilker, There have been numerous requests for a tool that would warn when mocking method that don''t exist, and I think it is great that you are working on aidmock. In the Motivation wiki page, you say that you recommend using real objects instead of mocks in all cases. I don''t agree with this, as an important basis for mock objects is the idea that we should mock roles, not objects [1]. I imagine that aidmock could work equally well with real objects and mock objects if there were a hook to tell a mock what interfaces it is allowed to stub. Something like: account = double(''account'').constrained_to(MyInterface) WDYT? [1] http://static.mockobjects.com/files/mockrolesnotobjects.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20110116/1d6e722e/attachment-0001.html>
You are right Dave, I was thinking about it, but with a different interface, like: Aidmock.double(Interface) but I mean your is cooler, and user will be able to apply mocks/stubs directly I will work on it today :) Thanks --- Wilker L?cio http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio Kajabi Consultant +55 81 82556600 On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:45 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>wrote:> On Jan 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Wilker wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I launched some days ago a new project that aims to make the use of mocks > safer. > This is the URL of project: https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock > > The basic idea is to make user define interfaces of classes, when user > defines the class interface (which is something like defining method > signatures on C or Java) Aidmock automatic generate some sanity check > specs, these specs will verify if class has the method defined, and if > it respect arity of interface. > > And more important, when user create mocks while developing specs, it > will verify all defined mocks, and check if they are respecting > defined interface. > > You can saw more about project motivation here(with some example of > why it exists): https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock/wiki/Motivation > > This project is a kind of experimental one, with a different idea, and > any feedback will be really welcome. > > > Hi Wilker, > > There have been numerous requests for a tool that would warn when mocking > method that don''t exist, and I think it is great that you are working on > aidmock. > > In the Motivation wiki page, you say that you recommend using real objects > instead of mocks in all cases. I don''t agree with this, as an important > basis for mock objects is the idea that we should mock roles, not objects > [1]. > > I imagine that aidmock could work equally well with real objects and mock > objects if there were a hook to tell a mock what interfaces it is allowed to > stub. Something like: > > account = double(''account'').constrained_to(MyInterface) > > WDYT? > > [1] http://static.mockobjects.com/files/mockrolesnotobjects.pdf > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20110117/d601a7b7/attachment.html>
Dave, I just updated the gem and documentation, now supporting constrained_to on mocks :) You have any other suggestions for now? --- Wilker L?cio http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio Kajabi Consultant +55 81 82556600 On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Wilker <wilkerlucio at gmail.com> wrote:> You are right Dave, > > I was thinking about it, but with a different interface, like: > > Aidmock.double(Interface) > > but I mean your is cooler, and user will be able to apply mocks/stubs > directly > > I will work on it today :) > > Thanks > --- > Wilker L?cio > http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio > Kajabi Consultant > +55 81 82556600 > > > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:45 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Jan 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Wilker wrote: >> >> Hi guys, >> >> I launched some days ago a new project that aims to make the use of mocks >> safer. >> This is the URL of project: https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock >> >> The basic idea is to make user define interfaces of classes, when user >> defines the class interface (which is something like defining method >> signatures on C or Java) Aidmock automatic generate some sanity check >> specs, these specs will verify if class has the method defined, and if >> it respect arity of interface. >> >> And more important, when user create mocks while developing specs, it >> will verify all defined mocks, and check if they are respecting >> defined interface. >> >> You can saw more about project motivation here(with some example of >> why it exists): https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock/wiki/Motivation >> >> This project is a kind of experimental one, with a different idea, and >> any feedback will be really welcome. >> >> >> Hi Wilker, >> >> There have been numerous requests for a tool that would warn when mocking >> method that don''t exist, and I think it is great that you are working on >> aidmock. >> >> In the Motivation wiki page, you say that you recommend using real objects >> instead of mocks in all cases. I don''t agree with this, as an important >> basis for mock objects is the idea that we should mock roles, not objects >> [1]. >> >> I imagine that aidmock could work equally well with real objects and mock >> objects if there were a hook to tell a mock what interfaces it is allowed to >> stub. Something like: >> >> account = double(''account'').constrained_to(MyInterface) >> >> WDYT? >> >> [1] http://static.mockobjects.com/files/mockrolesnotobjects.pdf >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rspec-users mailing list >> rspec-users at rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >> > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20110117/e1cbf1a0/attachment.html>
David Also, will be nice if in the future you and other mock frameworks authors support some kind of reflection on defined doubles (or even better, I can define an "Aidmock support guideline" to you implement support by yourselves). If you take a look at current RSpec Mocks driver on Aidmock[1] you will see that I need to use a lot of "instance_variable_get" to accomplish the work, and it has a serious risk to broke in any rspec-mocks update... WDYT? [1] https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock/blob/master/lib/aidmock/frameworks/rspec.rb --- Wilker L?cio http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio Kajabi Consultant +55 81 82556600 On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Wilker <wilkerlucio at gmail.com> wrote:> Dave, I just updated the gem and documentation, now supporting > constrained_to on mocks :) > > You have any other suggestions for now? > > --- > Wilker L?cio > http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio > Kajabi Consultant > +55 81 82556600 > > > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Wilker <wilkerlucio at gmail.com> wrote: > >> You are right Dave, >> >> I was thinking about it, but with a different interface, like: >> >> Aidmock.double(Interface) >> >> but I mean your is cooler, and user will be able to apply mocks/stubs >> directly >> >> I will work on it today :) >> >> Thanks >> --- >> Wilker L?cio >> http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio >> Kajabi Consultant >> +55 81 82556600 >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:45 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> On Jan 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Wilker wrote: >>> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> I launched some days ago a new project that aims to make the use of mocks >>> safer. >>> This is the URL of project: https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock >>> >>> The basic idea is to make user define interfaces of classes, when user >>> defines the class interface (which is something like defining method >>> signatures on C or Java) Aidmock automatic generate some sanity check >>> specs, these specs will verify if class has the method defined, and if >>> it respect arity of interface. >>> >>> And more important, when user create mocks while developing specs, it >>> will verify all defined mocks, and check if they are respecting >>> defined interface. >>> >>> You can saw more about project motivation here(with some example of >>> why it exists): https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock/wiki/Motivation >>> >>> This project is a kind of experimental one, with a different idea, and >>> any feedback will be really welcome. >>> >>> >>> Hi Wilker, >>> >>> There have been numerous requests for a tool that would warn when mocking >>> method that don''t exist, and I think it is great that you are working on >>> aidmock. >>> >>> In the Motivation wiki page, you say that you recommend using real >>> objects instead of mocks in all cases. I don''t agree with this, as an >>> important basis for mock objects is the idea that we should mock roles, not >>> objects [1]. >>> >>> I imagine that aidmock could work equally well with real objects and mock >>> objects if there were a hook to tell a mock what interfaces it is allowed to >>> stub. Something like: >>> >>> account = double(''account'').constrained_to(MyInterface) >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> [1] http://static.mockobjects.com/files/mockrolesnotobjects.pdf >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rspec-users mailing list >>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org >>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >>> >> >> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20110118/714c11a5/attachment-0001.html>
On Jan 18, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Wilker wrote:> David > > Also, will be nice if in the future you and other mock frameworks authors support some kind of reflection on defined doubles (or even better, I can define an "Aidmock support guideline" to you implement support by yourselves). If you take a look at current RSpec Mocks driver on Aidmock[1] you will see that I need to use a lot of "instance_variable_get" to accomplish the work, and it has a serious risk to broke in any rspec-mocks update... > > WDYT?I''d be willing to do that in the long run, but I''d want to see how aidmock shapes up in terms of acceptance and usage first. The last thing I want in rspec is a bunch of extra code that nobody is using.> [1] https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock/blob/master/lib/aidmock/frameworks/rspec.rb > --- > Wilker L?cio > http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio > Kajabi Consultant > +55 81 82556600 > > > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Wilker <wilkerlucio at gmail.com> wrote: > Dave, I just updated the gem and documentation, now supporting constrained_to on mocks :) > > You have any other suggestions for now? > > --- > Wilker L?cio > http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio > Kajabi Consultant > +55 81 82556600 > > > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Wilker <wilkerlucio at gmail.com> wrote: > You are right Dave, > > I was thinking about it, but with a different interface, like: > > Aidmock.double(Interface) > > but I mean your is cooler, and user will be able to apply mocks/stubs directly > > I will work on it today :) > > Thanks > --- > Wilker L?cio > http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio > Kajabi Consultant > +55 81 82556600 > > > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:45 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Wilker wrote: > >> Hi guys, >> >> I launched some days ago a new project that aims to make the use of mocks >> safer. >> This is the URL of project: https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock >> >> The basic idea is to make user define interfaces of classes, when user >> defines the class interface (which is something like defining method >> signatures on C or Java) Aidmock automatic generate some sanity check >> specs, these specs will verify if class has the method defined, and if >> it respect arity of interface. >> >> And more important, when user create mocks while developing specs, it >> will verify all defined mocks, and check if they are respecting >> defined interface. >> >> You can saw more about project motivation here(with some example of >> why it exists): https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock/wiki/Motivation >> >> This project is a kind of experimental one, with a different idea, and >> any feedback will be really welcome. > > Hi Wilker, > > There have been numerous requests for a tool that would warn when mocking method that don''t exist, and I think it is great that you are working on aidmock. > > In the Motivation wiki page, you say that you recommend using real objects instead of mocks in all cases. I don''t agree with this, as an important basis for mock objects is the idea that we should mock roles, not objects [1]. > > I imagine that aidmock could work equally well with real objects and mock objects if there were a hook to tell a mock what interfaces it is allowed to stub. Something like: > > account = double(''account'').constrained_to(MyInterface) > > WDYT? > > [1] http://static.mockobjects.com/files/mockrolesnotobjects.pdf > > _______________________________________________ > 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-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20110118/4d30acb9/attachment.html>
Yeah, unfortunately I''m not receiving too much feedback about it for now, so, I''m just using for myself and trying to make it better. I will try to spread more and more the idea, so make more people wanna try it, its a different concept and I mean people still a little afraid to try it. But I will keep going on it, I really believe in the idea :) Thanks --- Wilker L?cio http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio Kajabi Consultant +55 81 82556600 On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 7:12 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>wrote:> On Jan 18, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Wilker wrote: > > David > > Also, will be nice if in the future you and other mock frameworks authors > support some kind of reflection on defined doubles (or even better, I can > define an "Aidmock support guideline" to you implement support by > yourselves). If you take a look at current RSpec Mocks driver on Aidmock[1] > you will see that I need to use a lot of "instance_variable_get" to > accomplish the work, and it has a serious risk to broke in any rspec-mocks > update... > > WDYT? > > > I''d be willing to do that in the long run, but I''d want to see how aidmock > shapes up in terms of acceptance and usage first. The last thing I want in > rspec is a bunch of extra code that nobody is using. > > [1] > https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock/blob/master/lib/aidmock/frameworks/rspec.rb > --- > Wilker L?cio > http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio > Kajabi Consultant > +55 81 82556600 > > > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Wilker <wilkerlucio at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dave, I just updated the gem and documentation, now supporting >> constrained_to on mocks :) >> >> You have any other suggestions for now? >> >> --- >> Wilker L?cio >> http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio >> Kajabi Consultant >> +55 81 82556600 >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Wilker <wilkerlucio at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> You are right Dave, >>> >>> I was thinking about it, but with a different interface, like: >>> >>> Aidmock.double(Interface) >>> >>> but I mean your is cooler, and user will be able to apply mocks/stubs >>> directly >>> >>> I will work on it today :) >>> >>> Thanks >>> --- >>> Wilker L?cio >>> http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio >>> Kajabi Consultant >>> +55 81 82556600 >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:45 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> On Jan 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Wilker wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi guys, >>>> >>>> I launched some days ago a new project that aims to make the use of >>>> mocks >>>> safer. >>>> This is the URL of project: https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock >>>> >>>> The basic idea is to make user define interfaces of classes, when user >>>> defines the class interface (which is something like defining method >>>> signatures on C or Java) Aidmock automatic generate some sanity check >>>> specs, these specs will verify if class has the method defined, and if >>>> it respect arity of interface. >>>> >>>> And more important, when user create mocks while developing specs, it >>>> will verify all defined mocks, and check if they are respecting >>>> defined interface. >>>> >>>> You can saw more about project motivation here(with some example of >>>> why it exists): https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock/wiki/Motivation >>>> >>>> This project is a kind of experimental one, with a different idea, and >>>> any feedback will be really welcome. >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Wilker, >>>> >>>> There have been numerous requests for a tool that would warn when >>>> mocking method that don''t exist, and I think it is great that you are >>>> working on aidmock. >>>> >>>> In the Motivation wiki page, you say that you recommend using real >>>> objects instead of mocks in all cases. I don''t agree with this, as an >>>> important basis for mock objects is the idea that we should mock roles, not >>>> objects [1]. >>>> >>>> I imagine that aidmock could work equally well with real objects and >>>> mock objects if there were a hook to tell a mock what interfaces it is >>>> allowed to stub. Something like: >>>> >>>> account = double(''account'').constrained_to(MyInterface) >>>> >>>> WDYT? >>>> >>>> [1] http://static.mockobjects.com/files/mockrolesnotobjects.pdf >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20110118/b4296026/attachment-0001.html>
On Jan 18, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Wilker wrote:> Yeah, unfortunately I''m not receiving too much feedback about it for now, so, I''m just using for myself and trying to make it better. I will try to spread more and more the idea, so make more people wanna try it, its a different concept and I mean people still a little afraid to try it. But I will keep going on it, I really believe in the idea :)Wilker: not sure what you were expecting, but you just announced it on this list 2 days ago :) Give it a bit more time. Everybody else: come on, people! Many of you have been asking for some sort of auditing tool for mocks that tell you when you''re mocking stuff that doesn''t exist, and Wilker here is finally offering a workable solution. Feedback, please :) Cheers, David> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 7:12 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 18, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Wilker wrote: > >> David >> >> Also, will be nice if in the future you and other mock frameworks authors support some kind of reflection on defined doubles (or even better, I can define an "Aidmock support guideline" to you implement support by yourselves). If you take a look at current RSpec Mocks driver on Aidmock[1] you will see that I need to use a lot of "instance_variable_get" to accomplish the work, and it has a serious risk to broke in any rspec-mocks update... >> >> WDYT? > > I''d be willing to do that in the long run, but I''d want to see how aidmock shapes up in terms of acceptance and usage first. The last thing I want in rspec is a bunch of extra code that nobody is using. > >> [1] https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock/blob/master/lib/aidmock/frameworks/rspec.rb >> --- >> Wilker L?cio >> http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio >> Kajabi Consultant >> +55 81 82556600 >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Wilker <wilkerlucio at gmail.com> wrote: >> Dave, I just updated the gem and documentation, now supporting constrained_to on mocks :) >> >> You have any other suggestions for now? >> >> --- >> Wilker L?cio >> http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio >> Kajabi Consultant >> +55 81 82556600 >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Wilker <wilkerlucio at gmail.com> wrote: >> You are right Dave, >> >> I was thinking about it, but with a different interface, like: >> >> Aidmock.double(Interface) >> >> but I mean your is cooler, and user will be able to apply mocks/stubs directly >> >> I will work on it today :) >> >> Thanks >> --- >> Wilker L?cio >> http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio >> Kajabi Consultant >> +55 81 82556600 >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:45 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Wilker wrote: >> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> I launched some days ago a new project that aims to make the use of mocks >>> safer. >>> This is the URL of project: https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock >>> >>> The basic idea is to make user define interfaces of classes, when user >>> defines the class interface (which is something like defining method >>> signatures on C or Java) Aidmock automatic generate some sanity check >>> specs, these specs will verify if class has the method defined, and if >>> it respect arity of interface. >>> >>> And more important, when user create mocks while developing specs, it >>> will verify all defined mocks, and check if they are respecting >>> defined interface. >>> >>> You can saw more about project motivation here(with some example of >>> why it exists): https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock/wiki/Motivation >>> >>> This project is a kind of experimental one, with a different idea, and >>> any feedback will be really welcome. >> >> Hi Wilker, >> >> There have been numerous requests for a tool that would warn when mocking method that don''t exist, and I think it is great that you are working on aidmock. >> >> In the Motivation wiki page, you say that you recommend using real objects instead of mocks in all cases. I don''t agree with this, as an important basis for mock objects is the idea that we should mock roles, not objects [1]. >> >> I imagine that aidmock could work equally well with real objects and mock objects if there were a hook to tell a mock what interfaces it is allowed to stub. Something like: >> >> account = double(''account'').constrained_to(MyInterface) >> >> WDYT? >> >> [1] http://static.mockobjects.com/files/mockrolesnotobjects.pdf >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20110118/e2c11482/attachment.html>
On Jan 18, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Wilker wrote:> Yeah, unfortunately I''m not receiving too much feedback about it for now, so, I''m just using for myself and trying to make it better. I will try to spread more and more the idea, so make more people wanna try it, its a different concept and I mean people still a little afraid to try it. But I will keep going on it, I really believe in the idea :)I''ll give it a good mess around. It looks great. And like David said, please don''t be discouraged by the limited adoption after two days ;) Pat
Thanks guys, When I said I''m not getting so much feedback, I was referring because more time ago I talked about it in a lot of other lists too, but I know it still a lot young, and need a lot of improvement too :) But you know, when we launch a new project we get a lot excited with it and expects more feedback as possible :) Any suggestions, critics, any kind of feedback will be really welcome :) --- Wilker L?cio http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio Kajabi Consultant +55 81 82556600 On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Pat Maddox <patmaddox at me.com> wrote:> On Jan 18, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Wilker wrote: > > > Yeah, unfortunately I''m not receiving too much feedback about it for now, > so, I''m just using for myself and trying to make it better. I will try to > spread more and more the idea, so make more people wanna try it, its a > different concept and I mean people still a little afraid to try it. But I > will keep going on it, I really believe in the idea :) > > I''ll give it a good mess around. It looks great. > > And like David said, please don''t be discouraged by the limited adoption > after two days ;) > > Pat > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20110119/8446a530/attachment-0001.html>
Hi Guys, I added a significant release of Aidmock today. Now it supports an Automatic Interfacing feature. With this feature you can use Aidmock without defining any interface at all, when Aidmock try to check an interface, and it doesn''t exists, Aidmock will automatic generate the interface (of class, and all of it ancestors). It''s not much precise as manual one (I can''t automatic detect return and argument types), but is an easy way to start, with minimum setup at all. It also can''t detect ghost methods (methods implemented with method_missing). What you guys think about this new feature? --- Wilker L?cio http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio Kajabi Consultant +55 81 82556600 On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Wilker <wilkerlucio at gmail.com> wrote:> Thanks guys, > > When I said I''m not getting so much feedback, I was referring because more > time ago I talked about it in a lot of other lists too, but I know it still > a lot young, and need a lot of improvement too :) > > But you know, when we launch a new project we get a lot excited with it and > expects more feedback as possible :) > > Any suggestions, critics, any kind of feedback will be really welcome :) > --- > Wilker L?cio > http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio > Kajabi Consultant > +55 81 82556600 > > > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Pat Maddox <patmaddox at me.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 18, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Wilker wrote: >> >> > Yeah, unfortunately I''m not receiving too much feedback about it for >> now, so, I''m just using for myself and trying to make it better. I will try >> to spread more and more the idea, so make more people wanna try it, its a >> different concept and I mean people still a little afraid to try it. But I >> will keep going on it, I really believe in the idea :) >> >> I''ll give it a good mess around. It looks great. >> >> And like David said, please don''t be discouraged by the limited adoption >> after two days ;) >> >> Pat >> _______________________________________________ >> rspec-users mailing list >> rspec-users at rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >> > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20110124/d2478bc5/attachment.html>