similar to: Does mock_model''s :null_object option work?

I''m wondering whether I''m wasting my time trying to verify that an addition I''ve made to legacy code is in fact setting a new attribute on a model. Substruct''s (http://dev.subimage.com/projects/substruct) OrderHelper contains this method: 1 def create_order_from_post 2 @use_separate_shipping_address = params[:use_separate_shipping_address]

I installed Rspec and am getting the following failure: $ sudo gem install rspec Successfully installed rspec-1.0.8 Installing ri documentation for rspec-1.0.8... Installing RDoc documentation for rspec-1.0.8... $ spec -v RSpec-1.0.8 (r2338) - BDD for Ruby http://rspec.rubyforge.org/ $ cat acct.rb describe Account, " when first created" do it "should have a balance of $0"

What is the correct way to mock out the errors on a Rails model? I''m assuming i need to say @mock_thing = mock_model(Thing) @mock_thing_errors = mock("errors") @mock_thing_errors.should_receive(:full_messages).and_return("An error") @mock_thing.should_receive(:errors).and_return(@mock_thing_errors) Just wanted to check the best practice on this kind of thing and how

I find myself doing this kind of thing a lot in Controller Specs: @vacancy = mock_model(Vacancy) @vacancy.stub!(:reference) @vacancy.stub!(:title) @vacancy.stub!(:created_at) @vacancy.stub!(:updated_at) @vacancy.stub!(:body) @vacancy.stub!(:contract) @vacancy.stub!(:location) @vacancy.stub!(:salary) @vacancy.stub!(:benefits)

I have some code I want to stub out as it''s not part of what I''m testing. It''s got a bit of DSL going on, so there are method calls chained together. The call I want to stub out looks like this: user.record_action(:uploaded_a_photo => concert).with_result(photo) So ideally, I''d just do @user.stub!(:record_action) and that would return a null

hello it seems like this question has appeared a few times with no answer: how do you get rails to issue ''write'' statements (ie ''CREATE/UPDATE'') to the database without committing each time? I tried setting ActiveRecord::Base.connection.begin_db_transaction before calling any action on my object, but as soon as myObject.save or myObject.update is called,

Is there a built-in way of describing a mock_model as being an instance, beyond stubbing the eval("Object.methods - Object.new.methods") methods to throw NoMethodErrors? Edward

I am using mock_model in my tests, and I encountered a situation where my stub is failing. Here''s the scenario: Controller: @locations = Location.al(:bounds=>bounds)l @locations.sort_by_distance_from([bounds.center.lat,bounds.center.lng]) Rspec: @location = mock_model(Location) Location.stub(:all).and_return([@location])

Hi -- I am just getting to grips w/ view specs, and am having an issue with mock_model not stubbing the mocked model''s attributes. For instance, I have the following: <CODE> before do @input_timesheet = mock_model( InputTimesheet ) assigns[:input_timesheet] = @input_timesheet end it "should display a table element" do render

Has anyone else run into a problem with trying to use mock_model in spec/lib ? For some reason, I can take the same spec, put it in spec/models, have it run fine, but put it in spec/lib, and have it complain about not being able to find #mock_model Thanks, Edward

I writing a spec that returns the count of how many players in a game: it "should how many players in a link to all players" do render :partial =>"games/game", :object => @game response.should have_tag(''a'',"(2) Players") end I''m not sure how to do the mock model, I think it would be done two ways but unsure of the syntax: 1: add

Hi, I have two models in an app that inherit from ActiveResource::Base. The scaffold controller tests for one of the models works fine, but the other one dies when calling mock_model in the "handling GET /fa_codes" spec: Specifically, the call to mock model here: before do @fa_code = mock_model(FaCode) FaCode.stub!(:find).and_return([@fa_code]) end generates this failure:

Hi I can''t get heckle working. In fact, I''ve built an example so simple that it either shows a bug, or I am being really, REALLY stupid. Heckle does not appear to support RSpec directly, so I''m trying to use spec --heckle (RSpec trunk as of 10 mins ago, Heckle 1.4.1). I''ve constructed this pair of sample files: 18> ~/Desktop/heckle_test % cat

I have a namespace called saltmines The following will fail the spec @player = mock_model(Saltmines::Player) 1) ActionView::TemplateError in ''/saltmines/players/index.rhtml should render list of saltmines/players'' You have a nil object when you didn''t expect it! You might have expected an instance of Array. The error occurred while evaluating nil.each On line #9 of

Hi, My application relies on request.domain for doing its job. The problem I am encountering, is that when running tests, request.domain returns "test.host", how can I change that so that it returns "mysite.com"? Thanks in advance. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

I am getting: undefined method `mock_model'' for [RSpec example]:#<Class:0x25550a8> with my view specs after upgrading to 1.0.8. Is anyone else seeing this? To isolate the message I did the following setup: - create new rails project (with edge) - installed rspec and rspec_on_rails - ran rake spec - ran script/generate rspec_scaffold products - tried to run a builtin view

Given that RSpec has the following methods to create test doubles ... double(:my_test_double) mock(:my_mock_object) stub(:my_stub) Is there a way to/ plans to introduce a similar syntax for null objects? null_object(:my_null_object) Instead of mock(:bar, :is_null_object => true) or mock(:foo).as_null_object I think this would be cleaner, what do you think?

Mocha''s mock/stub framework has the ability to stub all methods on a mock given. Does RSpec''s mocking framework have this ability? And if not, is there some reason it shouldn''t be implemeneted? Regards, Scott

I''ve found myself mocking out a published api in my set-up method. This has led to some contexts having a large set-up and empty specifications. As the mocks get auto-verified, the specification blocks have nothing to do but serve as documentation. Does this sound bad? Chris

I have the following models: class Order < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :billing_address belongs_to :shipping_address accepts_nested_attributes_for :billing_address accepts_nested_attributes_for :shipping_address, :reject_if => proc { |attributes| attributes[''has_shipping_address''] != ''1'' } def after_initialize self.build_billing_address