similar to: Strange warnings with view specs

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

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

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

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

I have something like the following: def my_fun my_fun2 do raise Error end end I know that I can verify that the method receives my_fun2. How can I mock/stub out the example to verify that it calls raise Error? Scott

Consider the following method: def name_to_terminal puts "Scott Taylor" end How would I spec this out? Scott

I can''t figure out why I am getting a failure. It renders out fine in the browser. <h1>New member</h1> <%= error_messages_for :member %> <% form_for(:member, :url => members_path) do |f| %> <fieldset> <legend>Member Info</legend> <p><label for="member[first_name]">First Name:</label> <%=

I''ve notice that a project like Rubinius has both a spec & a test directory. Rspec has only a spec directory. Obviously I support BDD, but isn''t there also a place for state based/verification testing? I sometimes sense that I *do* want to practice Test Driven Development. That is, I want some assurance that my production code will run as intended. But I also

Is there any reason why a stub couldn''t both yield and return? I''m looking for a way to mock out a class I''ve made named "AnonymousClass": class AnonymousClass def initialize(&blk) @klass = Class.new @klass.instance_eval(&blk) if block_given? end def new @klass.new end def evaluate(&blk)

Hello! I''m just a caveman with some caveman questions. I''ve been parsing Rspec for quite a while, and I''m writing my first series of specs. My initial impressions are "Verbose, but understandable. Helpful and intuitive, but so much to digest." I want to congratulate the folks who are dedicating a chunk of their lives to writing this, and ask 2 caveman

My specs are still taking to long to run in a rails app. Is anyone using an in-memory database to run their specs? Any pointers or tips? Scott

Just wanted to pick some smart people about this topic: What are you guys doing to increase the speed of your specs? I''m a big fan of autotest, but right now my current project has 438 specs (for rails). Most of them are in the model, and for all of them we are hitting the database (they are more functional specs than unit-tests). The whole suite takes 112 seconds (meaning the

Here is an example from autotest: class Autotest def self.run new.run end def new ... end def run ... end ... end How would I spec out Autotest.run? Two complications come to my mind: 1. How do I spec out class methods? (please point me to docs, if any. I can only find class level specing on "partial mocks" (of rails class objects) 2. How can I tell

How would you spec out something like the following: def a_method x = Class.new do include Enumerable end # do something here with x end describe "The Anonymous Class" do before :each do @anonymous_class = mock Class Class.stub!(:new).and_return @anonymous_class end it "should create a new anonymous class" do

Hello, As I''m becoming more and more familiar with mocking/stubbing, I''m going back to some of my model specs and revaluating how I wrote them. I have certain models in which validation requires the presence of an associated model, which itself needs to be valid(validates_presence_of and validates_associated). When I wrote the specs, I wrote helpers for the attributes instead

I find myself doing this kind of thing a lot in Controller Specs: @vacancy = mock_model(Vacancy) @vacancy.stub!(:reference) @vacancy.stub!(:title) @vacancy.stub!(:created_at) @vacancy.stub!(:updated_at) @vacancy.stub!(:body) @vacancy.stub!(:contract) @vacancy.stub!(:location) @vacancy.stub!(:salary) @vacancy.stub!(:benefits)

Hi folks. I''m very interested in the status of a port of any_instance from Mocha to RSpec. In particular I have a spec suite that I wrote using RSpec but with Mocha that depends heavily on any_instance. This is because it stubs out one or two methods from an underlying API. In attempting to convert the suite to RSpec mocks (because that''s what we''re using for the rest

OK, so i''ve played a bit with mocks and mock_models in controller and view tests and i have a question. Is this statement really correct: "We highly recommend that you exploit the mock framework here rather than providing real model objects in order to keep the view specs isolated from changes to your models." (http://rspec.rubyforge.org/documentation/rails/writing/views.html

Just started looking at the Story Runner integration, and am converting a few Rails integration tests to get a feel for it. My integration tests relied on fixtures, and since my models have a significant amount of validation (and hence need valid data unless I save without validation), this has made setup easy. With stories however, I''m wondering what the recommended approach is.

Just a general opinion question on idioms/common usage. Is it better to mock Ruby''s base classes, or to use real instances of those base classes? @string = mock String @string.stub!(:to_s).and_return "hello" # or: @string = "hello" I was wondering which is generally favored, and if so, for what reasons? Or is it highly dependent on the type of spec which is