On May 3, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Al Chou wrote:
In the particular case of super, another approach, though perhaps
not using the spec framework, would be to assert (a la Test::Unit)
that your class is a subclass of the intended superclass. To be
truly anal, also assert that the superclass has a method with the
same name as the subclass's method of interest and that the subclass
has that method, too. But all this seems deeply into the xUnit
world, and far from the BDD way.
Al
The truth is that you shouldn't be spec'ing calls to the super
"method", but rather the behaviour of super. One quick way to do this
is as so:
[BaseClass, Subclass].each { |klass|
it "should do whatever super does" do
klass.new.foo_bar.should == :baz
end
end
Your original example is a little trickier, because you didn't write
the base class, and you probably aren't going to spec it out. There's
obviously great complexity in that call to super. Now you know why
none of us like writing specs against rails apps.
Scott
----- Original Message ----
From: John D. Hume <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: rspec-users <rspec-users@rubyforge.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2008 7:49:11 AM
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] spec'ing calls to super (or other Ruby
keywords)
I believe calls to super are sufficiently internal to the Ruby
interpreter that a mocking framework can't intercept them without
doing separate implementations for separate Ruby interpreters (and
likely even separate versions). I could be wrong, but even so I'd
recommend a different approach.
If your need is really as simple as your example, what you have is
just a method that has to get two things done: the base save and one
additional call. You can write one (or more) example for each of
those two things without your spec knowing that one of those things
gets done by calling super. (You might object that by spec'ing the
base #save behavior you're spec'ing the framework. I'd say you're
USING the framework to spec something your code does. To be clear,
I'm not suggesting you spec every detail of what save does: just
something to make sure the record actually lands in the db.)
(Sidebar: Keep in mind the return value if you're really overriding
#save like that.)
If you're dead set on spec'ing that the super method gets called,
there are a couple of hideous ways of doing it that will leak out of
your example. Namely, you can (in your spec) redefine the method in
the superclass and verify it gets called or (also in your spec, and
this one's a little less leaky) have the class under test include a
module that defines the same method and verify it gets called.
Don't do either of those though (unless it's just to prove to
yourself that they're possible).
-hume.
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Matt McNeil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi there,
How does one spec an invocation of a Ruby keyword, such as super in
this
case?
class User < ActiveResource::Base
# faking the ActiveRecord before/after_save observers
def save
super
UserMailer.deliver_activation(self) if recently_activated?
end
end
Does the solution look anything like the following?
describe User do
describe '#save' do
it "should call save on the parent class" do
# something.should_receive(:something)
@user.save
end
end
end
Any thoughts?
Thanks much,
Matt
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
Try it now._______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
