similar to: Bug #17118 - expectations should take precedence over stubs

I really like the idea of Mock Proxies as explained in Brian Takita''s post here: http://pivots.pivotallabs.com/users/brian/blog/articles/352-introducing-rr I posted to this list eariler with an incomplete implementation of .stops_mocking in the thread "Mocking Time, delegating to original object." The Mock Proxy pattern would make this simpler.

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!

On 31/12/06, Tobias L?tke <tobias.luetke at gmail.com> wrote: > > I just replaced various homegrown stubbing and mocking facilities in > Shopify and wanted to let you know my appreciation for this fantastic > library of yours. I love the user interface and the internal code is > something to behold as well. Thanks - I''m glad you''ve found it useful.

Hi folks. Does mocha support expectations in a sequence, like JMock''s after(...) method? Or something like that to support ordered expectations? Thanks, Dan

On 13/11/2007, Pradeep Gatram <pradeep.gatram at gmail.com> wrote: > > Let me put my dilemma as an example. Take a look at a snippet from > FooTest. > > #using mocha > def test_method1 > Bar.expects(:method2).with(''param1'', ''param2'').once > Foo.method1 > end > > And now the implementation > > class Foo > def

Hi I''m using Mocha 0.5.3 and I want to stub out a call to Time.now, just like the example in the post http://blog.floehopper.org/articles/2007/06/08/mocha-0-5-released However, trying it in irb gets me the following error: >> require ''mocha'' => true >> Time.stubs(:now).returns(Time.parse(''Thu Feb 01 00:00:00 UTC 2007'')) NoMethodError:

FYI - I''ve just released Mocha 0.5.6 to make Ruby 1.9 compatibility fixes available for those using released packages rather than subversion trunk. I''m not feeling well and so haven''t been able to test it other than by running all the tests using Ruby 1.9. Please let me know if you have any problems using it. Remember that it sometimes takes a while for a new gem

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: noreply at rubyforge.org <noreply at rubyforge.org> Date: 7 Sep 2007 22:43 Subject: [ mocha-Feature Requests-13763 ] add with_any_arguments method To: noreply at rubyforge.org Feature Requests item #13763, was opened at 2007-09-07 17:43 You can respond by visiting:

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: James Mead <jamesmead44 at gmail.com> Date: 15-Dec-2006 17:37 Subject: Re: Re: [HOWTO] Edgemocha To: John Pywtorak <jpywtora at calpoly.edu> On 15/12/06, John Pywtorak <jpywtora at calpoly.edu> wrote: > Compare > ~$ sudo gem install mocha > Attempting local installation of ''mocha'' > Successfully

I recently noticed some anomalies in the Mocha RDoc. Within a method RDoc comment, any word that happens to be the same as a method in the same class gets turned into a link. You can see an example [2] with the word "once" and another [3] with the words "yields", "times" and "with". Does anyone know how to stop these words incorrectly being made into

So I finally got round to releasing a new version<http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=1917&release_id=9184>of Mocha <http://mocha.rubyforge.org/>. Much of the functionality has been available for some time if you''ve been using the Rails plugin based on subversion HEAD, but now you can get it in all in a gem (or other package). The most recent changes centre around allowing

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

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: James Mead <jamesmead44 at gmail.com> Date: 07-Mar-2007 10:04 Subject: Re: Mocha raise exception first call, return value second call To: ruby-talk at ruby-lang.org On 07/03/07, Raymond O''Connor <nappin713 at yahoo.com> wrote: > > Is there a way to have mocha raise an exception the first time an stub > is called, and then

Hi, I''ve been reading with interest the threads trying to integrate Mocha and Stubba with RSpec. So far, I''ve made the two changes in spec_helper.rb suggested, but discovered another one that neither of the archives mentions: If you use traditional mocking: object = mock or the stub shortcut : object = stub(:method => :result), you run into namespace conflicts with

I''m not sure why mailman bounced your message (perhaps because you are not subscribed to the mailing list), but I''m glad you have solved your problem. Cheers, James. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: mailman-bounces at rubyforge.org <mailman-bounces at rubyforge.org> Date: 14 Oct 2007 17:21 Subject: Content filtered message notification To:

Has anybody been using Mocha trunk over the last month or two? I''ve done quite a bit of internal refactoring and wondered whether anyone had any problems. There are also a bunch of new features e.g. states, sequences, extra parameter matchers & configurable warnings, but these are not documented in the on-line rdoc. I wondered if anyone has been looking at the rdoc in trunk and

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kevin Clark <kevin.clark at gmail.com> Date: 01-Sep-2006 20:31 Subject: Dealing with exec? To: James Mead <jamesmead44 at gmail.com> Hey James, Sorry to bug you. I was curious how you''d handle a call to exec in a method you were testing. Kernel.stubs(:exec)... doesn''t seem to work but I''m not sure where else an

I''ve finally managed to find some time to do some serious work on Mocha. There are some code snippets on my blog (http://blog.floehopper.org/articles/2007/04/12/preview-of-latest-mocha-changes) showing the new functionality available in trunk (revision 128). I don''t don''t know how many people out there are using trunk, but it would be great to get some feedback on these

Hi guys, I''ve just been reading Martin Fowler''s article re mock versus stubbing<http://martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html>where he compares traditional TDD testing techniques with mock based testing. I''d be interested in comments from a ruby on rails perspective in terms of this and Mocha? For example: a) Do you see Mocha as a robust way to test Ruby

I like the concise version of stubs available on true mocks: => #<Mock:0x32f76d4> >> foo.stubs(:one => ''hi'', :two => ''again'') => {:one=>"hi", :two=>"again"} Why can''t we do it on ''real'' objects? >> foo = Object.new >> foo.stubs(:method1 => ''a'',