similar to: Fwd: Re: 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

I have seen some basic examples of using Mocha and Stubba with ActiveRecord Models; However, the ones I read were somewhat simplistic. That is they stubbed the find class method of the model, or the execute method of the connection object. While stubbing the find method had the desired effect for the author it did not help with a situation I was hacking away on. Which was writing a test case

---------- 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

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: 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: 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:

I''ve recently upgraded to the latest versions of Mocha and RSpec (0.3.2 and 0.6.3 respectively) and I''m no longer able to use Mocha/ Stubba with RSpec. Its actually only Stubba I''m interested in as I use RSpec''s built-in mocking library. I require stubba in my spec file but whenever I try and run my spec it fails with the error: Unintialized constant

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

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 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.

Index: Rakefile =================================================================== --- Rakefile (revision 73) +++ Rakefile (working copy) @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ task.rdoc_dir = ''doc'' task.template = "html_with_google_analytics" task.options << "--line-numbers" << "--inline-source" -

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

I''m pushing a major overhaul in testing the Rails codebase. Mocha and stubba make my life easy so that''s what I''m using. The first major patch using them is in RailTies (http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/5970) now. I spoke to DHH today about using it in the other libraries and I think it''ll be ok, but they really want to include as little code as needed. I

Hi James, An instance retains its mocha between tests if that instance is pointed to by a constant. The simplest failing test is something like (add as a new file in mocha/test).. #--code-- require File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__), "test_helper") require ''stubba'' class WemStubbaTest < Test::Unit::TestCase Arr = [1, 2, 3] def test_a

---------- 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

In my Unit tests, I run into the all-too-common problem of Time.expects(:now) being called by Benchmark before the method is unmocked. Instead of messing around with the teardown order, I decided to modify the Expectation with a new method, .stops_mocking. Here are the changes I use, including a few monkey patches to push relevant objects down to where I want them, all wrapped up in a big ugly

Hi, (Mocha and Stubba are great, btw.) Is there any way to alias the call to .type in Mocha? The issue is that AR effectively aliases the normal type method for the Column class (for whatever Adapter.) My code is reflecting on the adapter methods to iterate over the columns in a particular model. This makes it hard to write test code that stubs out columns and mocks my models. E.g. cols =

Hello, First, thanks for releasing Mocha. As someone who''s been practicing TDD much longer than I''ve been using Rails, one of my biggest complaints has always been the fact that the "Unit" tests are more like intefration tests because of how tightly coupled the domain model is when using ActiveRecord. Stubba looks like it could really help aleviate this problem. The

I prefer to use rspec than test::unit for developing my apps. However I''ve found its mocking library to be pretty inflexible compared to Mocha. This isn''t really a surprise since rspec isn''t intended as a mocking framework, whereas Mocha is. So I''d like to play to both of their strengths and use rspec as my testing/specification framework and Mocha do to

I prefer to use rspec than test::unit for developing my apps. However I''ve found its mocking library to be pretty inflexible compared to Mocha. This isn''t really a surprise since rspec isn''t intended as a mocking framework, whereas Mocha is. So I''d like to play to both of their strengths and use rspec as my testing/specification framework and Mocha do to