similar to: nil object in mocks

I spent the last couple of days getting my sea legs with Rails and RSpec. I''d been waiting til things seemed calmer before jumping in, and I''m overall very happy with my experience so far. My only real annoyance so far has been forgetting to call "do_post" or "do_create" from my specify blocks. My mocks don''t get the calls they want, and it usually

I wrote this abomination just now, and wonder if anyone else has had experience with the pattern behind it. In short, I''m specing an after_create hook on an ActiveRecord model, that calls a bunch of private methods. Instead of stubbing all those private methods (which is verboten anyway, as well as impossible because creating the object which owns those methods is what I''m

After a long week agonizing over a scheduling library, and then specing it out rather quickly, I''ve got some work I''m pretty happy with. As a contrast to Test::Unit, I like the way RSpec spreads my attention around the codebase while I concentrate on implementing specific behaviours. In Test::Unit, I tend to write tests around the private methods of the object under test. I

Anyone else having an issue with route-generation in specs breaking as of Rails trunk r6062? When I run my specs at r6061, they all pass, and in 6062 I get a trace like this every time my controller generates a route: TypeError in ''Requesting /artists/1 using PUT should redirect to the artist'' can''t convert Fixnum into String (eval):19:in `artist_url''

Please understand in the following that I am making relatively minor changes to legacy (non-TDD/BDD) code in Substruct and don''t have the time to refactor nicely right now. I''m just trying to get past the untested/un-speced cruft quickly to write the spec for my new code, so I''m looking for expediency over prettiness. I''m specifying before( :each ) do

The new "pending" example feature reminds me of a feature I''ve been bouncing around in my head, to aid in refactoring. Often, when I''m changing existing behaviour, I know that certain aspects of the old behaviour should change. Imagine changing the "it" method to perhaps "not" or "old" or "removed"... The behaviour would be to

Mongrelians, I''ve just posted a GemPlugin for Mongrel, which allows you to skip all header and status-code generation, effectively hijacking the socket for whatever your needs are, from inside the depths of any Rails, Camping, Merb etc application. http://mongrel-raw-out.rubyforge.org/ or gem install mongrel_raw_output I use the plugin at work, where the client insists that testing

Now that I''m developing a big suite of specs, I really want to run Heckle and see how well I''ve done. Using r1359, when I run: spec spec/models/metadata_report_spec.rb --heckle MetadataReport the result is just to run the specs once and then exit, as though I hadn''t mentioned Heckle. I started looking though rspec to figure out why, but it''s late, so I should

I''m developing a rails application. I have an Order model that has_many OrderItems. I mocked the OrderItem model in my Order specs using mock_model. I thought I should focus my specs on each model and always mock associated models. In my Order model I need a way to merge OrderItems which have the same cost and same product_id. That I can spec. The other thing this merge helper

My problem has been listed here: http://railsforum.com/viewtopic.php?pid=25439#p25439 Don''t think it would be required to completely re-type it here :) Thanks! -- -Daniel Fischer http://danielfischer.com - Geek Blog http://abigfisch.com - Portfolio http://writersbeat.com - Writing Community

Hi All I''m having some problems running my view specs when using simply_helpful. I have it semi-working via the following: module SimplyHelpfulHelper def self.included(base) base.send :include, SimplyHelpful::RecordIdentificationHelper base.send :include, SimplyHelpful::RecordTagHelper end end context "The index template" do setup do @shift =

I''m curious, Christian Neukirchen has released test/unit[1] that seems to mirror much of RSpec, but built on Test::Unit, so in some ways less brittle from a Rails-integration perspective, and also allowing you to mix the two together as appropriate. So, has anyone made an informed comparison? I''m new enough that I don''t really know the finer points yet. The syntax is

I''m wondering whether I''m wasting my time trying to verify that an addition I''ve made to legacy code is in fact setting a new attribute on a model. Substruct''s (http://dev.subimage.com/projects/substruct) OrderHelper contains this method: 1 def create_order_from_post 2 @use_separate_shipping_address = params[:use_separate_shipping_address]

I have some code I want to stub out as it''s not part of what I''m testing. It''s got a bit of DSL going on, so there are method calls chained together. The call I want to stub out looks like this: user.record_action(:uploaded_a_photo => concert).with_result(photo) So ideally, I''d just do @user.stub!(:record_action) and that would return a null

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

I''m looking at an example where a stub seems to work sometimes, and sometimes appears to become "unstubbed". I haven''t boiled it down to a minimal example, but it goes something like this: ---- the model: class Premise << ActiveRecord::Base def lookup_stuff_on_the_web $stderr.puts("entering lookup_stuff_on_the_web with #{self}") ... end end

Given that RSpec has the following methods to create test doubles ... double(:my_test_double) mock(:my_mock_object) stub(:my_stub) Is there a way to/ plans to introduce a similar syntax for null objects? null_object(:my_null_object) Instead of mock(:bar, :is_null_object => true) or mock(:foo).as_null_object I think this would be cleaner, what do you think?

Hi, I''m a rspec newbie. I''m having trouble with rspec''ing a simple controller to Create a record. I''ve tried a couple of approaches and still get errors: Mock ''remedy'' expected :save! with (any args) once, but received it 0 times -or- Mock ''Remedy'' received unexpected message :save with (no args). Here are my two

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)

Am I correct in remembering that autotest (with Test::Unit) would rerun all the tests if a subset of the tests passed? If so, shouldn''t this behaviour also be present in rspec''s autotest library? Scott