Displaying 20 results from an estimated 5000 matches similar to: "Fwd: *.rubyforge.org sites disappearing from google?"
2008 Jun 12
2
Google Group?
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
2008 Jan 02
2
Proxies
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.
2006 Dec 15
0
Fwd: Re: Re: [HOWTO] Edgemocha
---------- 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
2006 Sep 03
2
Fwd: Dealing with exec?
---------- 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
2007 Mar 09
0
Fwd: Mocha raise exception first call, return value second call
---------- 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
2008 Jun 12
2
Anyone using trunk?
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
2007 Nov 13
5
how to ensure signature compliance while mocking in ruby
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
2007 Apr 12
15
Preview of Latest Mocha Changes
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
2006 Dec 15
0
Fwd: Re: [HOWTO] Edgemocha
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Mead <jamesmead44 at gmail.com>
Date: 15-Dec-2006 11:54
Subject: Re: [HOWTO] Edgemocha
To: ruby-talk at ruby-lang.org
On 15/12/06, jpywtora at calpoly.edu <jpywtora at calpoly.edu> wrote:
> http://ruby-talk.blogspot.com/2006/12/get-edge-that-is-edgemocha.html
>
> All the mocha talk pushed me to the edge ;-)
> Hope it is
2008 Jan 20
2
Bug #17118 - expectations should take precedence over stubs
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).
2007 Dec 23
0
Fwd: [ mocha-Bugs-16523 ] Ruby 1.9 gives warning
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
2007 Sep 11
1
Fwd: [ mocha-Feature Requests-13763 ] add with_any_arguments method
---------- 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:
2007 Sep 21
5
Stubbing yielding methods
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
2007 Oct 07
0
Supressing RDoc links
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
2007 Jan 24
0
Mocha 0.4 released
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
2007 Oct 15
0
Fwd: Content filtered message notification
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:
2007 Mar 05
4
When to stub/when to mock (was Rails functional testing and Mocha)
Hi James,
> From: James Mead <jamesmead44 at gmail.com>
> Date: Mar 5, 2007 5:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [mocha-developer] Rails functional testing and Mocha
> To: mocha-developer at rubyforge.org
> "I''d probably stub the call to find not expect it, because its a query not a command"
I have a different perspective on when to use stubs and when to use
mocks and
2006 Dec 21
4
Stubbing Kernel#open
Anyone know how to stub Kernel#open? I''m trying to mock/stub an
open-uri call, but it doesn''t seem to like it.
Here''s the test code, and the failures:
body = File.open(File.dirname(__FILE__) +
''/../fixtures/google_search_california.html'').read
2007 Dec 20
0
Fwd: [ mocha-Patches-16424 ] Ruby 1.9 Compatibility
---------- 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
2007 Oct 25
0
Fwd: [ mocha-Feature Requests-15021 ] without or not params matcher
---------- 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: