On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:14 AM, Scott Taylor wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:01 AM, Sebastian W. wrote:
Hi Scott,
Cool - I see what you're saying here. The only thing that I'm a bit
confused still is that it seems like, at least if your system is
starting to get larger, you'd really *want* your fast unit test to
help
you catch API changes like this to help you make updates faster.
Having to run a suite of more expensive integration tests just to
catch
API changes seems a little funny. But I guess I'm also hoping that
there's some way for the mocks to help with that sort of thing -
it's my
understanding that some other frameworks out there help you with that
sort of stuff. One example mentioned to me was JMock -- granted,
that's
Java, but still - if it's possible in Java, Ruby should be able to
do it
too. :P
Most certainly.
David, et. all:
Why don't we have a partial mock which will raise an error (or at
least a warning) when stubbing an object who's class doesn't
respond_to? the method given? I feel like this sort of simple
dependency has been brought up 1000 times on the list before, but
never been explicitly stated.
Also, I'd be game for implementing this, and think it would be a good
default behavior for the #mock method when passed a class name, but
not a literal string.
Scott
WDYT?
Scott
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
