On 23 Jan 2009, at 09:03, Francis Fish wrote:
> Forgot to mention - you can easily end up writing the code in twice > (as in once as a set of expectations and the second time for real) > if you do this, stubbing out the internals of a method. It gets a) > brittle and b) old very quickly and needs to be done only when you > really need it. What Francis is saying is right - and the reason it would happen here is by modifying the internal API. If you're specifying the behaviour of @thing, and also setting stubs or should_receive expectations, you're modifying the object you're inspecting. In effect, you're not seeing the behaviour of an object of class Thing, but an object of another, similar, class - Thing' say - so you can't actually use those specs as proof that the class is correct. If you get into a situation where you *need* to stub out private methods, that suggests there's another class lurking in there. Ashley -- http://www.patchspace.co.uk/ http://aviewfromafar.net/ http://twitter.com/ashleymoran --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NWRUG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nwrug-members?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
