On Oct 22, 2008, at 9:46 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
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.
Yeah, I'll do this eventually if no one else does it, although I'll
probably want to add support for LH #576 first:
http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/576-switch-mock-frameworks-at-run-time#ticket-576-1
Scott
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
