similar to: Expecting calls with two different parameters

I''m simultaneously getting into using Mocha and RSpec-style tests (courtesy of the simply_bdd plugin) and I''m struggling with some issues while trying to organize my specs/test. Here''s a code example illustrating the problem: context "update cliient invalid data" do include ClientsControllerSpecHelper specify "should render edit form" do

Hello all, I''m having difficulty setting up mocks such that I can verify that Rails was going to render the right template file (for example new.rhtml) and stop Rails from performing the actual rendering. After peeking at Rails'' internals, I tried two techniques as illustrated here: http://pastie.caboo.se/18197 Neither worked. I think the first one failed because Rails

Hi, Are there any docs for combining parameter matchers, or some way to define optional parameters? I''m trying to match something like: .find( 42 ) || .find( 42, {:conditions=>nil,:includes=>nil} ) Or for that matter, 42 followed by nothing or anything... Halp? I''ve tried different nested combos with any_of/all_of/anything, but getting lost trying. --Andrew

Hi folks. I''ve just started using rspec and I have to say it''s very nice. The thing is, I prefer mocha''s mocking dialect. So I thought a simple require ''mocha'' would set me up. Unfortunately, rspec does all its goodness using do/end blocks in anonymous classes, so it wasn''t quite that obvious. Anyway, here is the incantation I ended up

I recently needed the behavior of my object to change on subsequent method calls so I added the syntax above. Here''s the diff of changes I made: Index: test/mocha/expectation_test.rb =================================================================== --- test/mocha/expectation_test.rb (revision 854) +++ test/mocha/expectation_test.rb (working copy) @@ -95,6 +95,12 @@

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

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

Hi folks. So I''m using mocha on a ruby project, and I really like it. One thing I''ve noticed is that it can be a bit "surprising" when I''m mocking methods that don''t exist on an object, and I think there''s an easyish fix. At the moment, you use sheep = mock() to create a mock sheep. What I''d like to do is something like sheep =

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

Hi guys, I''ve just been reading Martin Fowler''s article re mock versus stubbing<http://martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html>where he compares traditional TDD testing techniques with mock based testing. I''d be interested in comments from a ruby on rails perspective in terms of this and Mocha? For example: a) Do you see Mocha as a robust way to test Ruby

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.

---------- 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

Hi, I''m new to mocha and stubba but eager to learn. I have a rails functional test in which I would like to stub an instance method of particular class to always return true. I tried the following: def test_post_checkout Order.any_instance.stubs(:successful?).returns(true) post :checkout assert_response :redirect assert_equal "Checkout was successful.",

Hi guys. Quite happy with mocha for testing. It''s been a bit of an eye opener for me, and I expect to begin using it heavily. One other thing I''d like to do is stub out particular class methods in development. Is there a way I can do this with mocha? Jason

Seems like I do a fair amount of mocking ActiveRecord''s automatically generated routines when I''m testing controllers. Things like: @portalspace = PortalSpace.new :public_readable => true, :public_writable => true, :name => ''public'' @portalspace.stubs(:id).returns(203) PortalSpace.stubs(:find).with(203).returns(@portalspace)

How can I safely mock a singleton without the mocked method living on outside the scope of the test method? I''ve run into this problem with mocking methods on globals (gasp!) in the past by doing something like def mock_my_global original = $my_global $my_global.expects(:foo).returns(''bar'') yield $my_global = original end Is there something similar I

I''m getting into RSpec more after getting the awesome Peepcode screencast about it. So far I love it, but coming form Test::Unit with Rails, I have some concerns about the recommendation to mock models and database calls in controller and view specs. Lets say you have a method on your User model called User.find_activated, and you have models specs for it. Then in your controller specs

We''re encountering a failure with Mocha 0.5.6. We had this expectation: game_version.expects(:attributes=).with(:game_file => kind_of(GameFile), :game_id => @game.id) This expectation was passing with 0.5.5, but fails with 0.5.6. I added this test to parameter_matcher_acceptance_test.rb, which passes in 0.5.5 and fails in 0.5.6 def test_should_match_nested_parameters

Can somebody help me understand the new syntax for replacing a return statement that returns a Proc? I''m having difficulty understanding what is meant by: "Use explicit multiple return values and/or multiple expectations instead." source: http://mocha.rubyforge.org/classes/Mocha/ Expectation.html#M000024 Here is a simple example of what I am doing: http://