similar to: Is anybody using a block to verify arguments passed to an expectation?

Let''s say that I have a procedure that: * gets the number of bytes to write into some file * and returns the number of successfully written bytes def save( text, len ) This procedure is being used all over the place especially inside the method "process" which I want to test. Thus in order not to polute my filesystem I stub the "save" procedure. But of course in

Begin forwarded message: > From: Xavier Shay <xshay at rhnh.net> > Date: 23 September 2006 05:53:57 BDT > To: james.mead at mail.com > Subject: [PATCH] Remove warning in expectation.rb > > Hi James, > Please find below a one line addition to lib/mocha/expectation.rb > to remove the following warning: > > mocha-0.3.2/lib/mocha/expectation.rb:32: warning:

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

I find that a lot of times I want to ensure a method gets called exactly once, for example when testing caching or eager loading. What does the list think of adding this little humane method to Mocha::Expectation? def once times(1) self end which means this: def test_should_only_grab_post_once_from_the_cache Post.expects(:get_cache).with(google_vs_yahoo.id).times(1)

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

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!

Hi. I''m loving mocha but have ran into a problem with using the mocha plugin with a project that has the SslRequirement plugin. It seems there is some conflict between the two? Any ideas? $ ruby test/functional/calendar_controller_test.rb /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-1.4.0/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:478:in `const_missing'': uninitialized constant

Hello, I''m wanting to use Mocha and Stubba for my tests in place of the default Rails testing with fixtures. I have the following class: class Person < ActiveRecord::Base validates_uniqueness_of :email end and am wondering how I can test to ensure that the validates_uniqueness_of validation is running. Any ideas? -Jonathan

I''m trying to test some code that''s using active_merchant using the following test. What I''d like to be able to do is verify that purchase is called, however, rather than specifying the return value for purchase with returns, I''d like it to return the actual return value provided if you called the non mocked purchase method. Is this possible? def test_charge

Hi folks. Does mocha support expectations in a sequence, like JMock''s after(...) method? Or something like that to support ordered expectations? Thanks, Dan

First off, thanks for the great library. Is there a way setup expects with this: runtime_options[:property] = properties_option_string or do i have to use: runtime_options.store(:property, properties_option_string) which results in this: runtime_options.expects(:store).with(:property, ''prop1=1'') Thanks for your help. jeremy

Hi ! I would like to ascertain the following in a test case: @template.expects(:content_tag).with(:fieldset, :__any_arguments__i_dont_care) Is it possible to do so ? If so how ? If not, is it something the community wants ? Is it useful ? Thanks ! -- Fran?ois Beausoleil http://blog.teksol.info/ http://piston.rubyforge.org/

We''ve been working with the ParameterMatchers (so cool!) but I don''t see a way to insure a method is called with no arguments. I imagined something like: user = mock(''User'') user.expects(:friends).with(nothing) Anyone run into this?

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 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).

I have a test case where I''m stubbing one method (''jobs''), and mocking another (''new_worker'') MiddleMan.stubs(:jobs) MiddleMan.expects(:new_worker).with{|args| args[:class] ==:download_worker} MiddleMan.jobs() The above code results in an error ("The error occurred while evaluating nil.[]") - calling ''jobs'' results in

Hi all ! Running this: @payout = stub_everything(:id => 141) Payout.stubs(:find).with(@payout.id).returns(@payout) Generates this warning: ./test/functional/payouts_controller_test.rb:22: warning: Object#id will be deprecated; use Object#object_id What am I missing ? :id is a fairly frequent method to override in Rails-based applications. I''m using Mocha from

* 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

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13423 Bug ID: 13423 Summary: Checksum option does not work as expected when append-verify is used Product: rsync Version: 3.1.3 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: core