search for: should_not_rec

...going on here that relies on stuff produced from the above loop ... end end And here is the offending spec: specify "should prefetch the future residuals" do TODO: ask rspec team about duplicating this logic to get a nice error message @derivatives_by_id[26149].should_not_receive (:cap_future_residuals_for_registration_date).and_return( CapFutureResidual.find_all_by_derivative_id_and_registration_year_and_re gistration_month(26149, 2003, 9) ) end Sorry for the car finance jargon!!! How can I get round this? Here is my attempt at an alternative spec...

Hello guys, Is there any way to match a render :nothing? I coudn''t find any way to do this so i''ve just changed my controllers to do a "head :ok", but it would be nice to know if there is any other way :) -- Maur?cio Linhares http://alinhavado.wordpress.com/ (pt-br) | http://blog.codevader.com/ (en) Jo?o Pessoa, PB, +55 83 8867-7208

I''ve found myself mocking out a published api in my set-up method. This has led to some contexts having a large set-up and empty specifications. As the mocks get auto-verified, the specification blocks have nothing to do but serve as documentation. Does this sound bad? Chris

What is the appropriate way to stub out (and put an expectation on Object#__send__), without getting warnings from the Rspec mock library? Scott

...end end end context "The TaskRunner" do setup do @runner = TaskRunner.new @task = mock(''SampleTask'') @task.stub!(:run) Thread.stub!(:new) end specify "should not run a task in the main thread" do @task.should_not_receive(:run) @runner.execute(@task) end specify "should run a task in a new thread" do Thread.should_receive(:new).with(@task).and_yield(@task) @task.should_receive(:run) @runner.execute(@task) end specify "should be running while a t...

...l changelog: http://github.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/compare/v2.10.0...v2.10.1 Bug fixes * fix [regression of edge case behavior](https://github.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/issues/132) * fixed failure of `object.should_receive(:message).at_least(0).times.and_return value` * fixed failure of `object.should_not_receive(:message).and_return value` ### rspec-rails-2.10.1 full changelog: http://github.com/rspec/rspec-rails/compare/v2.10.0...v2.10.1 Bug fixes * fix [regression introduced in 2.10.0 that broke integration with Devise](https://github.com/rspec/rspec-rails/issues/534)

...email) @db_updater = mock("db_updater"); @db_updater.stub! (:update_db) @data_storer = DataStorer.new(@logger, @emailer, @db_updater, false) end specify "should NOT store the data given to the DB when asked to store" do @db_updater.should_not_receive(:update_db) @data_storer.store("moo") end end I have a bad feeling about this. If I change the emailer line in the store method to this: @emailer.send_email("Somebody stored ''#{data}''") if @do_update_db_step The behaviour ha...

Hello, I''m wondering If I am missing something here when creating an example that sets an expecation at the top or beginning of an action but requires you to stub / mock everything that follows. Example: I want to test that a certain controller is running a before_filter...thats easy: - controller.should_receive(:require_user) - do_get But now i''ve got to mock / stub

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

There is one annoyance I''m encountering with the Mock API in rSpec. Overall it works well, as far as dynamic mocks go ;)... but there''s this one thing... It doesn''t allow overriding of expectations. example: m = mock("blah") m.should_receive(:one).any_number_of_times().and_return(1) m.should_receive(:one).and_return(1) The second call to should_receive

...inking RSpec''s implementation or commit to a future of monkey patching other frameworks as they introduce new uses of method_missing. Using expectation matchers means that we only need to add 4 methods to Object: #for expectation matchers should should_not #for mocks/stubs should_receive should_not_receive So it is much less invasive than it was before and, because we are not using method_missing on YOUR objects, is much less conflict/error prone. It also supports a clear entry point to writing custom expectation matchers, so if you have some domain-specific expectations like "should trave...

...rect.tmSnippet RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_equal.tmSnippet RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_include.tmSnippet RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_match.tmSnippet RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_predicate.tmSnippet RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_raise.tmSnippet RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_receive.tmSnippet RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_respond_to.tmSnippet RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_satisfy.tmSnippet RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_throw.tmSnippet RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_predicate.tmSnippet RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_raise.tmSnippet RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/sho...