>In the context of rSpec/rSpec-Rails, however, the API makes it >confusing, to be honest. Being able to create a Mock with >Spec::Mocks:Mock with Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods# confuses me.
Ops! In this paragraph I forgot to put the instance method name: It should read Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods#stub Thanks, Marcelo. On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa<celose...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks David and Ben for the comprehensive replies! I really appreciate it :) > > These wikipedia articles helped me to understand on the more conceptual level: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_stub > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_object > > So, if I understand it right -- Stub is for methods and Mocks are for > roles (or, in the technical-level -- objects). > > In the context of rSpec/rSpec-Rails, however, the API makes it > confusing, to be honest. Being able to create a Mock with > Spec::Mocks:Mock with Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods# confuses me. > > The same applies for stub_model() and mock_model(). I know that > mock_model is a convenience method that can be used to create an > object with an API similar to ActiveRecord::Base's. The API says > stub_model is basically the same, but prevents the object from > accessing the database. Ok, but why attaching these concepts to Stub? > Is this the right name to use for this method? (Stub == mock object > that is not allowed to access the database?). > > And there's the Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub method, which is the one > that reflects the concept that "the Stub is a dummy method". > > So, in sum, my perception is that rSpec/rSpec-Rails implement all the > functionality needed to implement Mocks and Stubs, but in a confusing > way. IMHO, the API is not succinct in this aspect -- it does not > communicate a clear distinction between Mocks and Stubs and this makes > it hard for someone new to TDD/BDD to use them in the right way or > decide the best way to use them. > > My 0.4 cents of Brazilian Reals. > > @David -- yes, I'm Brazilian! You've got a good gut! And I'm glad to > see that you know Portuguese! :) > > Marcelo. > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:47 PM, David Chelimsky<dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 23, 7:41 pm, Ben Mabey <b...@benmabey.com> wrote: >>> Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:> Hello list, >>> >>> > >From what I could see, the lines between mocks and stubs are subtle, >>> > but the general idea I got is that mocks set expectations and stubs >>> > are only dummy objects/method calls. What confused me though, is that >>> > the stub() method is an alias for mock() in >>> > Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods. So a stub is a mock? >>> >>> Yes, no, and maybe so. :p I agree with your general understanding that >>> "mocks set expectations and stubs are only dummy objects/method calls". >>> The fact that rspec using the same machinery to provide stubs and mocks >>> is really inconsequential because the deciding factor of what they are >>> is how you use them. You can, IMO, use a "mock" like a stub and a >>> "stub" like a mock.. Take this for example: >>> >>> describe "#some_method" do >>> it "delegates to some_obejct" do >>> some_object = stub('some object', :some_method => "foo") >>> my_object = MyObject.new(some_object) >>> >>> my_object.some_method.should == "foo" >>> end >>> end >>> >>> We are using a stub as a dummy object, and yet our expectation is >>> clearing testing the method call. So is the above a stub or is it >>> really a mock? I would say that it is acting like a mock. I hope that >>> others on the list will correct me if I am wrong making this >>> observation/conclusion. Likewise we could use a mock as a dummy object >>> and never set any expectations on it and it would be acting like a >>> stub. Even though stub and mock is the same in RSpec you should still >>> use the correct name when using them. >>> >>> > Also, another thing that is confusing: You have stub and stub! methods >>> > in the Spec::Mocks::Methods namespace, what is the difference between >>> > Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods#stub and Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub ? >>> >>> Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods are the methods that you can call during the >>> course of a code example. So when you say stub("something") the method in >>> Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods gets called and returns you a stub. Now, that >>> stub object now has it's own #stub method which lives on >>> Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub. That call will stub out the provided method and >>> return value... So my_stub.stub(:foo, "bar"), however that is aliased from >>> #stub! which is used most often. This is all from memory so I could be >>> wrong but that is the general gist of it. >>> >>> HTH, >>> -Ben >> >> Ben and I are secretly the same person. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
