rspec users - Apr 2011 - stubbing directly vs using stub method

I use RSpec mock and stub like this:

hit = mock("hit", :stored => 5)

This works fine, but when using this instead:

hit = mock("hit").stub(:stored) { 5 }

then I get

undefined method `stored'' for #<RSpec::Mocks::MessageExpectation:
0xb688bb78>

I always thought both were equivalent. Can someone enlighten me?

Regards,
Kai

On Apr 2, 2011, at 8:20 AM, Kai Schlamp wrote:
> I use RSpec mock and stub like this:
> 
> hit = mock("hit", :stored => 5)
> 
> This works fine, but when using this instead:
> 
> hit = mock("hit").stub(:stored) { 5 }
> 
> then I get
> 
> undefined method `stored'' for
#<RSpec::Mocks::MessageExpectation:
> 0xb688bb78>
> 
> I always thought both were equivalent. Can someone enlighten me?
This error message tells you the problem: the `stub` method in the second
example returns an instance of RSpec::Mocks::MessageExpectation, not the double
itself. If you did it this way, you''d get what you were looking for:

hit = mock(''hit'')
hit.stub(:stored) { 5 }
hit.stored.should eq(5)

Make sense?

David
> Regards,
> Kai

> hit = mock(''hit'')
> hit.stub(:stored) { 5 }
> hit.stored.should eq(5)
>
> Make sense?
Of course :-) Thanks.

On Apr 2, 2011, at 6:20 AM, Kai Schlamp wrote:
> I use RSpec mock and stub like this:
> 
> hit = mock("hit", :stored => 5)
> 
> This works fine, but when using this instead:
> 
> hit = mock("hit").stub(:stored) { 5 }
Not that it''s really necessary, but to make this work you can do:

hit = mock(''hit'').tap {|h| h.stub(:stored) { 5 } }

although I prefer passing a hash into mock, much cleaner :)

Pat