similar to: Fwd: [ mocha-Feature Requests-15021 ] without or not params matcher

Thanks for reporting the bug below. You''re absolutely right. Renamed Range#to_s implementation to #mocha_inspect and checked first and last respond_to?(:to_f) as you suggested. Sorry for the delay - I wasn''t monitoring the rubyforge trackers. I am now! Should be fixed in revision 99 of trunk. -- James. http://blog.floehopper.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From:

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: noreply at rubyforge.org <noreply at rubyforge.org> Date: 11-Apr-2007 15:31 Subject: [ mocha-Feature Requests-5856 ] Stubbing of private methods should be allowed To: noreply at rubyforge.org Feature Requests item #5856, was opened at 2006-09-22 17:03 You can respond by visiting:

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: noreply at rubyforge.org <noreply at rubyforge.org> Date: 11-Apr-2007 15:39 Subject: [ mocha-Feature Requests-7119 ] ability to specify call order To: noreply at rubyforge.org Feature Requests item #7119, was opened at 2006-12-06 00:30 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

---------- 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: 11-Apr-2007 15:07 Subject: [ mocha-Bugs-6416 ] Mock objects shouldn''t define #to_s To: noreply at rubyforge.org Bugs item #6416, was opened at 2006-10-31 15:34 You can respond by visiting: http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=7477&aid=6416&group_id=1917

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: noreply at rubyforge.org <noreply at rubyforge.org> Date: 11-Apr-2007 15:24 Subject: [ mocha-Bugs-5892 ] Using a setup method in test_case_class destroys subsequent test cases To: noreply at rubyforge.org Bugs item #5892, was opened at 2006-09-25 07:49 You can respond by visiting:

---------- 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

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: noreply at rubyforge.org <noreply at rubyforge.org> Date: 30-Jun-2007 14:33 Subject: [ mocha-Bugs-11885 ] never doesn''t work with stub_everything To: noreply at rubyforge.org Bugs item #11885, was opened at 2007-06-27 14:13 You can respond by visiting:

---------- 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:

Hi Kevin, Not currently, I''m afraid - I always realised it was a possible problem, but we haven''t run into it in our use of Mocha so far. I guess you''re pushing the envelope with it, which is great. If you only need to do it for one or two objects, you could just undefine the offending methods. In the meantime I''ll look into a better solution. It may not be

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/? >

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: noreply at rubyforge.org <noreply at rubyforge.org> Date: 04-Jul-2007 19:21 Subject: [ mocha-Bugs-12001 ] Method call count is not reported correctly on error To: noreply at rubyforge.org Bugs item #12001, was opened at 2007-07-04 15:21 You can respond by visiting:

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

---------- 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

* Hamcrest-style parameter matchers * Values returned and exceptions raised on consecutive invocations * Yields on consecutive invocations * Multiple yields on single invocation * Invocation dispatch fixed * Deprecated returning result of a Proc -- James. http://blog.floehopper.org

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: J. B. Rainsberger <jbrains762 at gmail.com> Date: 02-Dec-2006 02:48 Subject: Re: Mocha and ActiveRecord To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk at ruby-lang.org> James Mead wrote: > On 28/11/06, J. B. Rainsberger <jbrains762 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Suppose I have an Order, which has_many OrderItems. Suppose I want to >>

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Raymond O''connor <nappin713 at yahoo.com> Date: 23-Feb-2007 08:20 Subject: Re: Mocha test retry to connect up to 10 times To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk at ruby-lang.org> Hemant Kumar wrote: > On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 14:57 +0900, Raymond O''connor wrote: >> >> Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

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.

* Includes Rails plugin. * Auto-verify for all expectations including those on concrete classes. * Include each expectation verification in the test result assertion count. * Filter out noise from assertion backtraces. * Point assertion backtrace to line where failing expectation was created. * New yields method for expectations. * Create stubs which stub all method calls. * Mocks now respond_to?