similar to: mock libraries, Object#send, and Object#__send__

Hi all, Initially I thought this was a bug in the built-in mocking framework(and it still may be), but I better hash it out on the mailing list before I file/reopen the ticket: http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/478-mocks-on-constants#ticket-478-6 I thought my example illustrated my problem, but obviously I was passing the wrong arguments to the mock. I revised my example to

What is the difference between these two ways of mocking (with and without the string): mock(''Object'') and mock(Object) ? Scott

I have something like the following: def my_fun my_fun2 do raise Error end end I know that I can verify that the method receives my_fun2. How can I mock/stub out the example to verify that it calls raise Error? Scott

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

Just a general opinion question on idioms/common usage. Is it better to mock Ruby''s base classes, or to use real instances of those base classes? @string = mock String @string.stub!(:to_s).and_return "hello" # or: @string = "hello" I was wondering which is generally favored, and if so, for what reasons? Or is it highly dependent on the type of spec which is

I''ve notice that a project like Rubinius has both a spec & a test directory. Rspec has only a spec directory. Obviously I support BDD, but isn''t there also a place for state based/verification testing? I sometimes sense that I *do* want to practice Test Driven Development. That is, I want some assurance that my production code will run as intended. But I also

Is there any reason why a stub couldn''t both yield and return? I''m looking for a way to mock out a class I''ve made named "AnonymousClass": class AnonymousClass def initialize(&blk) @klass = Class.new @klass.instance_eval(&blk) if block_given? end def new @klass.new end def evaluate(&blk)

Hello! I''m just a caveman with some caveman questions. I''ve been parsing Rspec for quite a while, and I''m writing my first series of specs. My initial impressions are "Verbose, but understandable. Helpful and intuitive, but so much to digest." I want to congratulate the folks who are dedicating a chunk of their lives to writing this, and ask 2 caveman

I don''t like this: i = mock(Integer) i.should_receive(:asdfasdf).and_return(''foo'') puts i.asdfasdf Shouldn''t rspec check to see that :asdfasdf is a valid message to be sending Integer? Joe

How would you spec out something like the following: def a_method x = Class.new do include Enumerable end # do something here with x end describe "The Anonymous Class" do before :each do @anonymous_class = mock Class Class.stub!(:new).and_return @anonymous_class end it "should create a new anonymous class" do

I''m trying to mock a object to raise a certain error. By doing so I get a ArgumentError on ActiveRecord''s save! method: http://pastie.caboo.se/85628 I''ve tried to debug it but just can''t seem to find what I''m doing wrong. Any help is greatly appreciated. Cheers, Eivind Uggedal

Okay - so the sqlite bug reported a day or so ago on the list is real bug. I''m going to file something in the tracker for that... I also learned that before(:all)...after(:all) is not wrapped in a transaction, the way before(:each)...after(:each) is. Is there some reason behind this? Can you not wrap transactions inside transactions? 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

Consider the following method: def name_to_terminal puts "Scott Taylor" end How would I spec this out? Scott

I saw in one of Dave C.''s comments to a ticket that "our current plan is to deprecate the mocking framework." I hadn''t heard anything about that, but then again I haven''t paid super close attention to the list. Are we planning on dumping the mock framework in favor of using Mocha (or any other framework one might want to plug in?). Pat

I have the following code, which yields instance eval''s the block given: class Foo def bar(&blk) instance_eval &blk end def baz yield end end The effect of this is that self is reassigned: Foo.new.bar do # here, self is the instance of Foo # created by new end But normally self is the object in which Foo.new.bar {...} occurs. Foo.new.baz do

I want to create a spec/regressions directory with various regressions (for my rails project). I tried the following: describe LoginController, "regression for user creation when steves_sister does not exist", :behavior_type => :controller do controller_name :login before :each do @params = { "commit"=>"Create Account",

I''ve been seeing the following in some of my view specs: .P.P........ignoring attempt to close spec::mocks::mock:0x7334c4c with td opened at byte 258, line 20 closed at byte 287, line 20 attributes at open: {} text around open: "\t</tr>\n\t<tr>\n\t\t<td>#<Spec::Mocks::Mock:0" text around close:

As it is currently, in trunk, --failures and --examples except a text file, each line containing the name of a spec. I''m wondering: Would a a patch to use YAML (instead or as well as) plain text be welcomed? I''m thinking of a yaml file like the following: spec_file_1: file: spec/person_spec.rb specs: - should have first name - should provide email address

My specs are still taking to long to run in a rails app. Is anyone using an in-memory database to run their specs? Any pointers or tips? Scott