search for: mockings

Hi Jonathan, On Sun, 23 Aug 2020, Jonathan Billings wrote: > On Aug 23, 2020, at 12:07, me at tdiehl.org wrote: >> >> ?Hi, >> >> I am trying to create a mock configuration file that points to my local dnf repo. >> I have the following in the mock config template: >> >> [local-repo] >> name=my-Local >>

Morning, somehow the upgrade to 4.4 broke mock on my system: | [angenenr at shutdown SPECS]$mock -r c3-i386 /home/angenenr/redhat/SRPMS/apache-ssl-2.8.28-2el4.src.rpm | init | clean | prep | This may take a while | Could not find useradd in chroot, maybe the install failed? Nope, it's not the config_opts['chroot_setup_cmd'] = 'groupinstall build' issue, as I'm still

I saw in one of Dave C.''s comments to a ticket that "our current plan is to deprecate the mocking framework." I hadn''t heard anything about that, but then again I haven''t paid super close attention to the list. Are we planning on dumping the mock framework in favor of using Mocha (or any other framework one might want to plug in?). Pat

Hi all, Initially I thought this was a bug in the built-in mocking framework(and it still may be), but I better hash it out on the mailing list before I file/reopen the ticket: http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/478-mocks-on-constants#ticket-478-6 I thought my example illustrated my problem, but obviously I was passing the wrong arguments to the mock. I revised my example to

Hey all - The trunk currently supports three types of mocking/stubbing: Mock Objects (created dynamically at runtime) Partial Mocking of methods on existing classes Stubbing of methods on existing objects or classes The main difference between Partial Mocking and Stubbing is that Stubs don''t verify. I''m wondering if we really need the stubbing facility at all, given that we

Hello, I recently made a feature request with a patch for terser mocks. http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=10412&group_id=1917&atid=7480 Here are some examples with their current equivalents: the_mock.expects.foo(1,2) {|a, b| :bar} the_mock.expects.foo(1,2).returns(:bar) the_mock.expects(:foo).with(1,2) {|a, b| :bar} the_mock.expects(:foo).with(1,2).returns(:bar)

Rails model association collections allow you to do nifty things like: article.comments.find(:all, :conditions => {:created_at > 1.day.ago}) Has anyone found a good way to mock this up? I''m currently doing this: @comment1 = mock_model(Comment) comments = mock(Array) comments.stub!(:find).and_return([@comment1]) @article = mock_model(Article)

Hi folks. So I''m using mocha on a ruby project, and I really like it. One thing I''ve noticed is that it can be a bit "surprising" when I''m mocking methods that don''t exist on an object, and I think there''s an easyish fix. At the moment, you use sheep = mock() to create a mock sheep. What I''d like to do is something like sheep =

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!

Mocha''s mock/stub framework has the ability to stub all methods on a mock given. Does RSpec''s mocking framework have this ability? And if not, is there some reason it shouldn''t be implemeneted? Regards, Scott

Hi, I am trying to create a mock configuration file that points to my local dnf repo. I have the following in the mock config template: [local-repo] name=my-Local baseurl=http://yumrepo.example.com/yum-repository/local/centos/8/x86_64/ failovermethod=priority skip_if_unavailable=False When I try to run mock I get the following error: (vgeppetto3 pts18) $ mock -v -r epel-8-x86_64

What is the difference between these two ways of mocking (with and without the string): mock(''Object'') and mock(Object) ? Scott

Here''s another one. spec: m = mock("blah") m.should_receive(:foo).with(1) code: m.foo(2) Failure message: Mock ''blah'' expected ''foo'' once, but received it 0 times ------ Twice now I''ve gotten this failure message and wasted time trying to understand why the method foo() was not being called despite all evidence suggesting

I''ve been seeing the following in some of my view specs: .P.P........ignoring attempt to close spec::mocks::mock:0x7334c4c with td opened at byte 258, line 20 closed at byte 287, line 20 attributes at open: {} text around open: "\t</tr>\n\t<tr>\n\t\t<td>#<Spec::Mocks::Mock:0" text around close:

Hello :) Having just gone through the (admittedly simple) API of Mocha to learn how it works, I wrote a quick guide (190 lines) to help others get up to speed. I''ve attached it as RDOC and as HTML. It is a first draft - please help me improve by giving feedback ! Contents : Overview - Quick overview of Mocha Unit testing, mock object and stubs - Very quick introduction to mock

I want to use ActiveResource in my app. Instead of hitting server though, I want it to load from a file when I call find. Any clue how I do that? Pat

Hi! I know you must be answering a lot of basic questions, sorry about that :-) However I have not get it, how do you keep mocks updated without pain? I reached to the point where mocking things for view. I spec model-controller-view using "correct doc" way mocking-stubbing (plus I should run integration test to be sure that everything really works together). Now, when I want to

I''ve just started doing TDD/BDD and like the idea of mocks. So I set out to use them. The doc pages seem great, I setup the mock and then it just works. Here is what I am trying to do: Myuser is a non-rails model of user attributes. We are going to be mocking the connection to the ldap server. The user class has a login method that connects to the ldap server and if successful,

Am I correct in thinking that it''s not currently possible to have a method that creates a ''standard'' mock (i.e. a mock that has defaults useful in all contexts)? I''ve tried with the mock method and also by manually creating new Mock instances. I get failures when setting up expectations (undefined method ''receive'' for proc). Chris

On 25/08/20 11:27 am, Jonathan Billings wrote: > On Aug 24, 2020, at 16:48, me at tdiehl.org wrote: >> >> Also, I am trying to add a dist tag to rpms that I build in mock. >> In the epel-7 configs I do something like the following: >> config_opts['macros']['%dist'] = '.el7.tnt' to get a dist tag on the >> rpms. In epel/centos 8 this does not