On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Scott Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 19, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
>
>> Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Pat Maddox wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> As for #3, I'm
>>>>> pretty sure that Ruby's method_missing allows one to raise an
>>>>> exception easily. Not sure what a Javascript mocking framework would
>>>>> do in this case.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure that I buy that this feature is very important. Both
>>>> Javascript and Ruby blow up when you call a method that doesn't
>>>> exist on
>>>> it anyway. What's the difference between "Received unexpected message
>>>> 'foo'" and "NoMethodError 'foo'"?
>>>
>>> Unless I'm mistaken, it's only when *another* method gets called on a
>>> missing method that an error gets raised:
>>>
>>>>>> o = {};
>>>
>>> Object
>>>>>>
>>>>>> o.foo
>>
>> You would need to do o.foo() to actually call the method. That will
>> give you "o.foo is undefined"
>>
>
> Oops. I feel like a tool. Guess ruby syntax still invades my brain.
>
>>
>>> BTW, Pat - Have you still been working on integrating test spy into
>>> rspec?
>>
>> Nope, I found not_a_mock [1] and it works well.
>
>
> Any plans to roll not_a_mock into rspec core?
No, but if you'd like to submit a patch w/ a wrapper we can add it to
the list of supported frameworks.
>
> Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
