similar to: Fwd: [ mocha-Feature Requests-7119 ] ability to specify call order

---------- 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:

---------- 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:

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:

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-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:

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:

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.

Hi all - I''ve recently made the leap from FlexMock to Mocha for mocks within my app. Today I decided to upgrade from Mocha 0.3.2 to Mocha 0.4.0. So I updated the gem, started rake and went to get some coffee. I came back 5 mins later and my units (which were clean) are now reporting 97 failures (!!!). Every failure reports a callstack like this: 18) Error:

FYI - Jim Weirich just released an rspec-compatible version of FlexMock. For those of you using trunk, you can now use either FlexMock, Mocha, or RSpec''s built-in mocking framework by saying: Spec::Runner.configure do |config| config.mock_with :flexmock # or :mocha or :rspec (default) end The choice is yours. Mock in peace. Cheers, David ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From:

Just curious - now that rspec (as of 0.9) let''s you choose your mock framework, how many of you are actually using (or planning to use) mocha or flexmock? Anybody planning to use any other mock framework besides rspec, mocha or flexmock? Thanks, David

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

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