similar to: how to ensure signature compliance while mocking in ruby

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

Hi folks. So I''m using mocha on a ruby project, and I really like it. One thing I''ve noticed is that it can be a bit "surprising" when I''m mocking methods that don''t exist on an object, and I think there''s an easyish fix. At the moment, you use sheep = mock() to create a mock sheep. What I''d like to do is something like sheep =

Hi guys. Quite happy with mocha for testing. It''s been a bit of an eye opener for me, and I expect to begin using it heavily. One other thing I''d like to do is stub out particular class methods in development. Is there a way I can do this with mocha? Jason

I''m getting into RSpec more after getting the awesome Peepcode screencast about it. So far I love it, but coming form Test::Unit with Rails, I have some concerns about the recommendation to mock models and database calls in controller and view specs. Lets say you have a method on your User model called User.find_activated, and you have models specs for it. Then in your controller specs

Seems like I do a fair amount of mocking ActiveRecord''s automatically generated routines when I''m testing controllers. Things like: @portalspace = PortalSpace.new :public_readable => true, :public_writable => true, :name => ''public'' @portalspace.stubs(:id).returns(203) PortalSpace.stubs(:find).with(203).returns(@portalspace)

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''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 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

Begin forwarded message: > From: <noreply at rubyforge.org> > Date: 15 June 2007 10:44:07 BDT > To: noreply at rubyforge.org > Subject: [ mocha-Patches-11583 ] Mocha 0.5.0 throwing unexpected > warnings, one line patch included > > Patches item #11583, was opened at 2007-06-14 21:28 > You can respond by visiting: > http://rubyforge.org/tracker/? >

How can I safely mock a singleton without the mocked method living on outside the scope of the test method? I''ve run into this problem with mocking methods on globals (gasp!) in the past by doing something like def mock_my_global original = $my_global $my_global.expects(:foo).returns(''bar'') yield $my_global = original end Is there something similar I

Hello, I recently made a feature request with a patch for terser mocks. http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=10412&group_id=1917&atid=7480 Here are some examples with their current equivalents: the_mock.expects.foo(1,2) {|a, b| :bar} the_mock.expects.foo(1,2).returns(:bar) the_mock.expects(:foo).with(1,2) {|a, b| :bar} the_mock.expects(:foo).with(1,2).returns(:bar)

Hello all, I have a question concerning mocha''s handling of protected and private methods. When expecting such a method, the method is public in the test. I expected the method to keep its original visibilty. Is this intended behaviour, or a bug? Thanks for your help, Tammo Freese

This drives me insane on a regular basis. How does one mock system(''blah'') or `blah` ? Adding expectations on Kernel doesn''t do it. Adding expectations on Object just makes me sad: Object.any_instance.expects(:system).with(''ls'') # => #<Mock:0x12b584e>.system(''ls'') - expected calls: 0, actual calls: 1 And this really

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!

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'',

I prefer to use rspec than test::unit for developing my apps. However I''ve found its mocking library to be pretty inflexible compared to Mocha. This isn''t really a surprise since rspec isn''t intended as a mocking framework, whereas Mocha is. So I''d like to play to both of their strengths and use rspec as my testing/specification framework and Mocha do to

I prefer to use rspec than test::unit for developing my apps. However I''ve found its mocking library to be pretty inflexible compared to Mocha. This isn''t really a surprise since rspec isn''t intended as a mocking framework, whereas Mocha is. So I''d like to play to both of their strengths and use rspec as my testing/specification framework and Mocha do to

Hello, I''ve just started using Mocha in the tests for my Rails app, and I''ve run across an issue with mocking a method that should be called with different parameters. How would I setup a mock that expects that a method will be called once with no paramaters, and a second time with a parameter? I''d be tempted to shortcut and just do something like

Hi, Are there any docs for combining parameter matchers, or some way to define optional parameters? I''m trying to match something like: .find( 42 ) || .find( 42, {:conditions=>nil,:includes=>nil} ) Or for that matter, 42 followed by nothing or anything... Halp? I''ve tried different nested combos with any_of/all_of/anything, but getting lost trying. --Andrew

---------- 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