On Jul 25, 2008, at 1:15 AM, Matt Lins wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Scott Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 the stubs are defined the same way in both occurrences, no?
MyModel = mock('MyModel Class', :count => 1)
By passing {:count => 1} to +stubs_and_options+ I should have defined
stubs on the mock object. I'm using it as a shortcut for this:
MyModel = mock('MyModel Class')
MyModel.stub!(:count).and_return(1)
If those example aren't doing the exact same thing I guess I'm a
little baffled (or maybe just need to go to sleep).
The first one is redefining the constant 'MyModel'. The second one is
just redefining a class method (the constant isn't changing - it's
remaining whatever it was before - say, a class)
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).
Ok, I get what you saying, but as I understand it I am explicitly
stubbing out the methods on the _mock_ object and it's still
complaining. If +stubs_and_options+ isn't stubbing, then what is it
doing?
That's right - the hash to the mock method is a shorthand. So these
two are equivalent:
my_mock = mock('a mock')
my_mock.stub!(:foo).and_return(:bar)
AND:
my_mock = mock("a mock", {:foo => :bar})
Scott
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
