search for: jamesmead44

I have a test case where I''m stubbing one method (''jobs''), and mocking another (''new_worker'') MiddleMan.stubs(:jobs) MiddleMan.expects(:new_worker).with{|args| args[:class] ==:download_worker} MiddleMan.jobs() The above code results in an error ("The error occurred while evaluating nil.[]") - calling ''jobs'' results in

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kevin Clark <kevin.clark at gmail.com> Date: 01-Sep-2006 20:31 Subject: Dealing with exec? To: James Mead <jamesmead44 at gmail.com> Hey James, Sorry to bug you. I was curious how you''d handle a call to exec in a method you were testing. Kernel.stubs(:exec)... doesn''t seem to work but I''m not sure where else an exec call might come from. Ideas? I''m going to push hard to get...

Hi James, > From: James Mead <jamesmead44 at gmail.com> > Date: Mar 5, 2007 5:15 AM > Subject: Re: [mocha-developer] Rails functional testing and Mocha > To: mocha-developer at rubyforge.org > "I''d probably stub the call to find not expect it, because its a query not a command" I have a different perspec...

Hi guys, I''m running mocha (0.3.2) against Rails core and just found an issue where the mock doesn''t go away after the test is run. For example: def test_reset_bang_doesn_reinstall_named_routes ActionController::Routing::Routes.named_routes.expects(:install).never @session.reset! end def test_zzz puts ActionController::Routing::Routes.named_routes.inspect

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

Anyone know how to stub Kernel#open? I''m trying to mock/stub an open-uri call, but it doesn''t seem to like it. Here''s the test code, and the failures: body = File.open(File.dirname(__FILE__) + ''/../fixtures/google_search_california.html'').read

...ly have to unit-test *trivial* methods explicitly. I also like the idea of using 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,...

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

I''ve finally managed to find some time to do some serious work on Mocha. There are some code snippets on my blog (http://blog.floehopper.org/articles/2007/04/12/preview-of-latest-mocha-changes) showing the new functionality available in trunk (revision 128). I don''t don''t know how many people out there are using trunk, but it would be great to get some feedback on these

On 13/11/2007, Pradeep Gatram <pradeep.gatram at gmail.com> wrote: > > Let me put my dilemma as an example. Take a look at a snippet from > FooTest. > > #using mocha > def test_method1 > Bar.expects(:method2).with(''param1'', ''param2'').once > Foo.method1 > end > > And now the implementation > > class Foo > def

Hello, I''ve just started using Mocha in the tests for my Rails app, and I''ve run across an issue with mocking a method that should be called with different parameters. How would I setup a mock that expects that a method will be called once with no paramaters, and a second time with a parameter? I''d be tempted to shortcut and just do something like

On my current project I needed to create a stub that responded correctly to the id message. Here''s the change I put into my copy of head. Index: lib/mocha/mock_methods.rb =================================================================== --- lib/mocha/mock_methods.rb (revision 1114) +++ lib/mocha/mock_methods.rb (working copy) @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ method_names =

First off, I love mocha and have been using it all over the place ever since I found it a few months ago. So I noticed the other day rather belatedly that mocha-0.4.0 had been released and that we can now do the object.stubs(:method).returns (:first_value, :second_value). Much neater than fiddling with lambdas everytime this sort of behaviour is needed But can we go further ? I was

This works: class X def X.initialize( stuff ) end end X.initialize("bla") However stubbing it doesn,t: require ''test/unit'' require ''stubba'' class X def X.initialize( stuff ) end end class XTest < Test::Unit::TestCase def test_ X.stubs(:initialize).with("bla")

I''m getting into RSpec more after getting the awesome Peepcode screencast about it. So far I love it, but coming form Test::Unit with Rails, I have some concerns about the recommendation to mock models and database calls in controller and view specs. Lets say you have a method on your User model called User.find_activated, and you have models specs for it. Then in your controller specs

Seems like I do a fair amount of mocking ActiveRecord''s automatically generated routines when I''m testing controllers. Things like: @portalspace = PortalSpace.new :public_readable => true, :public_writable => true, :name => ''public'' @portalspace.stubs(:id).returns(203) PortalSpace.stubs(:find).with(203).returns(@portalspace)

Hey all, I have a question with using mocha in my tests. In the same test file, I have two tests, <code> def test_a klass.any_instance.stubs(:method_name).returns("something") klass.new.method_name ... end def test_b ... klass.new.method_name ... end </code> where klass is some class when the tests run, test _a passes, but test_b had an error like this:

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!

While running tests, we would like to instrument some of the classes under test. We still want the classes to do exactly what they currently do, but we would like them to do more when running in the test environment. Clearly we can (and currently do) just extend the objects "on the fly" where necessary, but this is a bit messy - we''d like some centralised way to always

Hi, I''ve been reading with interest the threads trying to integrate Mocha and Stubba with RSpec. So far, I''ve made the two changes in spec_helper.rb suggested, but discovered another one that neither of the archives mentions: If you use traditional mocking: object = mock or the stub shortcut : object = stub(:method => :result), you run into namespace conflicts with