search for: duncanbeevers

...g the Mock Proxy to exercise the behavior of simple private instance methods of my class which are kind of a pain to test currently, which leads to my not making anything private. On Jan 2, 2008 6:50 AM, James Mead <jamesmead44 at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 05/11/2007, Duncan Beevers <duncanbeevers at gmail.com> wrote: > > The block syntax looks excellent, and reads very nicely. I especially > > like the idea of not having to pass in the mock to the block to stick > > the expectations onto, and instead just continue fluently adding > > expectations. > > >...

I was reading through the FlexMock docs and noticed the expectation method .mock, which returns the original mock associated with an expectation. It looks really handy for writing nice all-in-one mocks like: mock_user = mock(''User'').expects(:first_name).returns(''Jonah'').mock So I started playing around with mocha and found I could actually already do this!

We''re encountering a failure with Mocha 0.5.6. We had this expectation: game_version.expects(:attributes=).with(:game_file => kind_of(GameFile), :game_id => @game.id) This expectation was passing with 0.5.5, but fails with 0.5.6. I added this test to parameter_matcher_acceptance_test.rb, which passes in 0.5.5 and fails in 0.5.6 def test_should_match_nested_parameters

A number of people have had difficulties subscribing and/or sending messages to the existing mailing list. Also I have to spend quite a bit of time moderating spam and the mailman interface is pretty clunky. So I was contemplating setting a Google Group up instead. Does anyone have any objections? -- James. http://blog.floehopper.org http://tumble.floehopper.org

I''d like to create expectations on just portions of the arguments a function takes. For example, I want to verify that the a certain ActiveRecord association extension adds an order clause to the find options hash. Currently I simply check the entire argument structure, something like this def test_referring_journals_should_order_by_citation_count article =

We''ve been working with the ParameterMatchers (so cool!) but I don''t see a way to insure a method is called with no arguments. I imagined something like: user = mock(''User'') user.expects(:friends).with(nothing) Anyone run into this?

I''ve just been tying my brain in knots looking at bug #8687 ( http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=8687&group_id=1917&atid=7477 ). I''ve been (1) trying to work out whether there is anything logically wrong with Mocha''s existing behaviour and (2) whether Mocha should support the requested functionality. It all centres around the use of the

Hi Folks, There is much discussion where I work at present regarding migrations, and the ''correct'' usage or not of them. TL;DR Should migrations be used just to modify schema, and other ''deploy'' tasks done other ways? If yes, how to ensure no repeat runs of such tasks (seeds, jobs etc) Background Once you''re live there are often additional things

I''m attempting to assign ActiveRecord Observers to some of my models, specified in config/environment.rb like so, config.active_record.observers = :presentation_observer, :asset_observer, :tag_observer My models use plugins which extend ActiveRecord::Base, including Sebastian Kanthak''s file_column Attempting to boot mongrel yields:

In my Unit tests, I run into the all-too-common problem of Time.expects(:now) being called by Benchmark before the method is unmocked. Instead of messing around with the teardown order, I decided to modify the Expectation with a new method, .stops_mocking. Here are the changes I use, including a few monkey patches to push relevant objects down to where I want them, all wrapped up in a big ugly