similar to: Testing two interdependent ActiveRecord models

how would you check for a range using rspec? person.password.range.should == Range.new(5..40) <- this doesn''t work -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070527/4d8cb007/attachment-0001.html

As it is currently, in trunk, --failures and --examples except a text file, each line containing the name of a spec. I''m wondering: Would a a patch to use YAML (instead or as well as) plain text be welcomed? I''m thinking of a yaml file like the following: spec_file_1: file: spec/person_spec.rb specs: - should have first name - should provide email address

I think this test should pass but it doesn''t 1) NoMethodError in ''Person should return full name'' undefined method `full_name?'' for #<Person:0x3567964> ./spec/models/person_spec.rb:43: describe Person do it "should return full name" do person = Person.new person.should be_full_name end end class Person < ActiveRecord::Base def

How would I go about writing specs for a lib, particularly one with all protected and private methods. I''m trying to spec the AuthenticatedSystem library from the rails restful_authentication plugin: http://pastie.caboo.se/103625 Also, when you''re mocking objects, a side-effect is helping you define the api of the object. Is there a way to get all the behaviors that

I''m currently try to push my limits a little bit with some of my unit testing -- trying to avoid saving ActiveRecord objects to the database and take advantage of mock/stub objects. How far should I expect to get in this direction? From what I can tell, ActiveRecord seems to fight me when it comes to associations. In other words, many associations seem to require database queries.

Hi all, I have what I thought was quite a simple requirement but something to do with the way ActiveRecord''s associations work is making it quite puzzling. I guess I can sum it up with this failing test: before(:each) do @source_comment = @source.comments.create(:user_id => 1) @target_comment = @target.comments.create(:user_id => 1) end

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 folks. I''ve just started using rspec and I have to say it''s very nice. The thing is, I prefer mocha''s mocking dialect. So I thought a simple require ''mocha'' would set me up. Unfortunately, rspec does all its goodness using do/end blocks in anonymous classes, so it wasn''t quite that obvious. Anyway, here is the incantation I ended up

Hi, I''m pretty new to Rspec, so hope someone can help me out with this. I''m leveraging a couple pre-existing applications in my current project, both have fairly robust test suites in Rspec already. However, one is using Rspec''s builit in mocking, and the other is using mocha. If I set config.mock_with mocha in spec_helper.rb, then all of the rspec mocks fail. If I

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

Hi! I''m still struggling with RSpec to get it working with a Rails application, that does not use a database. I removed all the db:* dependencies from the RSpec targets, but it still wants to connect to a database. Any ideas? bye, Tobias ** Execute spec:models /usr/bin/ruby1.8 -I"/var/lib/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-0.7.5/lib"

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

This may have turned up in the RSS feeds of many of you already, but for those who haven''t seen it yet, looks intersting: <http://errtheblog.com/post/7708> > The main problem with fixtures, for me, has always been how unfun > they are. They literally suck the fun out of anything they?re > around. You throw them in your test/ directory, then suddenly > testing

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

Trunksters, I just added a couple of methods to ActionView::Base in Spec::Rails (as of r2136) that lets you do this in view examples: describe ''/things/index.html.erb'' do it "should render _thing with a collection of things" do assigns[:things] = things = [Object.new] template.expect_render(:partial => ''thing'', :collection => things)

Suppose we have a method ''foo'' which internally uses another method ''bar''. Being good BDDers we mock out the ''bar'' method. After all, we only want to spec the ''foo'' method - actually running the ''bar'' method means slower, less maintainable and brittler specs. That''s why we <3 mocking,

The ability to choose a mocking framework is great as I prefer mocha, but I am have problems. On my controller specs, I am forced to ''integrate_views'' as the following code below shows you, the mocking of views is rspec specific. See stub! versus mocha''s stub unless block_given? unless integrate_views?

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

What is the general opinion about fixtures versus mocking and stubbing in model specs? I heard from agile on IRC that they save the database testing for integration testing, but I also see that the caboose sample applicaiton uses fixtures. I also noticed that on the rspec site, it says "Ironically (for the traditional TDD''er) these are the only specs that we feel should actually

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