On Jul 25, 2008, at 12:32 AM, Matt Lins wrote:
I suppose the way I'm defining the stubs, differs from what Dave is
doing in his example.
I assumed that:
MyModel = mock('MyModel Class', :count => 1)
was the same as:
MyModel.stub!(:count).and_return(1)
Nope. Not even close. Here's an equivalent of the first form:
Object.send :remove_const, :MyModel
MyModel = <a mock object>
and here's the second form:
MyModel.instance_eval do
def count
1
end
end
(or:)
MyModel.class_eval do
class << self
def count; 1; end
end
end
Scott
But, I'm starting to think they are not. I haven't looked at the
rSpec internals to verify, other than the parameter name:
stubs_and_options+ lets you assign options and stub values
at the same time. The only option available is :null_object.
Anything else is treated as a stub value.
So, is this problem?
Yeah - so here are two related, but not equivalent ideas: mock
objects, and stubs. A stub is just a faked out method - it can exist
on a mock object (a completely fake object), or on a partial mock
(i.e. a real object, with a method faked out). mock('My mock") is a
mock object, MyRealObject.stub!(:foo) is a real object with the method
foo faked out.
What is the difference between a mock object and a fake object? A
mock object will complain (read: raise an error) any time it receives
a message which it doesn't understand (i.e. one which hasn't been
explicitly stubbed). A real object will work as usual. (A null
object mock is a special type of mock - one which never complains.
For now, you shouldn't worry about it).
Hope this helps,
Scott
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
