I worded that wrong, sorry for the confusion. I am actually trying to test for
what a function is called with NOT what it returns. "execute" is called with
an Array that contains a system command and arguments. I want to make sure
that the array contains at least "/usr/sbin/usermod" and "-e". If all I cared
about was making sure the /usr/sbin/usermod was in the array this syntax works
"provider.expects(:execute).with(includes('/usr/sbin/usermod'))"
The Mocha documentation uses this example of the includes method:
object.expects(:method_1).with(includes('foo'))
Your suggestion of using the block method appears to be exactly what I needed
provider.expects(:execute).with() {|args|
args.include?('/usr/sbin/usermod') and args.include?('-e') }
Thanks!
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Daniel Pittman
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:10 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Puppet-dev] Rspec Help
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:35 PM, John Julien <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm trying to write a test case that expects an array to come back
> from a function and I want to make sure at least 2 elements exist
> "/usr/sbin/usermod" and "-e"
>
> My code is:
> provider.expects(:execute).with(includes('/usr/sbin/usermod'),
> includes('-e'))
That isn't valid syntax, and I can't even quite guess what you are trying to do:
Calling `.with` using arguments means "expect the function to be invoked with
*exactly* these arguments".
If you want to check only the first two, you need to use the block version
instead.
You are also calling the top level `include` function there, which is unlikely
to work. You can only invoke matchers after a `.should` or equivalent is
applied to them.
That also doesn't seem to be testing what you say you are testing: you said you
wanted to test "an array to come back from a function", but your example is
testing the arguments that a function is called with.
Generally speaking, the former is a much better test. Testing what the
function returns is often much less tied to the implementation details than
testing how a different function is called (presumably with the results of your
own function.)
--
Daniel Pittman
⎋ Puppet Labs Developer – http://puppetlabs.com ♲ Made with 100 percent
post-consumer electrons
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
