similar to: ParameterMatcher backwards compatibility broken

I''ve just been tying my brain in knots looking at bug #8687 ( http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=8687&group_id=1917&atid=7477 ). I''ve been (1) trying to work out whether there is anything logically wrong with Mocha''s existing behaviour and (2) whether Mocha should support the requested functionality. It all centres around the use of the

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

A number of people have had difficulties subscribing and/or sending messages to the existing mailing list. Also I have to spend quite a bit of time moderating spam and the mailman interface is pretty clunky. So I was contemplating setting a Google Group up instead. Does anyone have any objections? -- James. http://blog.floehopper.org http://tumble.floehopper.org

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 wanted to draw attention to this bug report [A] which highlights a change that was made between Mocha 0.4 and 0.5. It may have lead to tests which pass unexpectedly. Does my explanation (below) make sense to people? It feels like we should at least add some warnings to the documentation. You are correct that this behaviour did change between Mocha v0.4.0 and > v0.5.0 (in revision 115).

Did any further discussion ever come of this? I take it is officially not supported currently? I just get an odd error when I try it (it throws a "0 expected 1 received", no matter what stubbing/expectation combo I use), so came looking around on google, and finally the mailinglist. Here''s my stripped down example: http://pastie.caboo.se/145603 (it fails with expects too)

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

---------- 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: noreply at rubyforge.org <noreply at rubyforge.org> Date: 25 Oct 2007 14:01 Subject: [ mocha-Feature Requests-15021 ] without or not params matcher To: noreply at rubyforge.org Feature Requests item #15021, was opened at 2007-10-24 15:33 You can respond by visiting:

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

I''d like to create expectations on just portions of the arguments a function takes. For example, I want to verify that the a certain ActiveRecord association extension adds an order clause to the find options hash. Currently I simply check the entire argument structure, something like this def test_referring_journals_should_order_by_citation_count article =

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: noreply at rubyforge.org <noreply at rubyforge.org> Date: 20 Dec 2007 15:48 Subject: [ mocha-Patches-16424 ] Ruby 1.9 Compatibility To: noreply at rubyforge.org Patches item #16424, was opened at 2007-12-19 02:43 You can respond by visiting: http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=7479&aid=16424&group_id=1917 Category: None

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

---------- 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

Just in case anybody is bold enough to be using un-pistonized "edge" Mocha, I thought I would warn you that I''m doing some moderately significant internal refactoring. Hopefully this should be invisible, but there is a chance I might accidentally break something. Let me know if you have any problems and I''ll try and sort it out. -- James. http://blog.floehopper.org

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: noreply at rubyforge.org <noreply at rubyforge.org> Date: 11-Apr-2007 15:31 Subject: [ mocha-Bugs-8687 ] Block''s return value is dropped on stubbed yielding methods. To: noreply at rubyforge.org Bugs item #8687, was opened at 2007-02-15 17:29 You can respond by visiting:

We''ve been working with the ParameterMatchers (so cool!) but I don''t see a way to insure a method is called with no arguments. I imagined something like: user = mock(''User'') user.expects(:friends).with(nothing) Anyone run into this?

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

http://packages.debian.org/source/lenny/libmocha-ruby -- James. http://blog.floehopper.org http://tumble.floehopper.org