similar to: Debian package

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.

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

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

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

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

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: 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: 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:

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:

---------- 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 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: 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

---------- 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

* 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

I''ve just committed (revision 194) a first stab at supporting optional parameter matching. More about this later, but in the meantime I wanted to warn anyone bold enough to be working with "edge" Mocha, that any custom parameter matchers they have written will be broken by this change. However it is easy enough to fix them. You need to derive the matcher from

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

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

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 =

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!