On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Ashley Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David: +1 for stub_model, but could you make it autodetect if the stub > is for an attribute or a method? It would be nice to do away with > the :attr and :stub distinction.
Not sure what you mean here - that is handled transparently by stub_model so you don't have to make any such distinction. Take a look at http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec-rails/tree/master/lib/spec/rails/example/rails_example_group.rb and see if it sheds some light. > I have to say, though, I don't see > the advantage of using a real object as the basis for the mock as long > as one is used as a sanity check for the stubs (maybe I am missing a > benefit). Not sure what you mean here either. Can you elaborate? _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
