On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Ben Mabey<b...@benmabey.com> wrote:
> 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.
Well, I'm not sure.
There's a difference here.
The stub simply sets things up so that IF some_object receives
:some_method it will return 'foo' instead of something else (including
a method_missing error).
If the implementation looks like:
class MyObject
def initialize(obj)
end
def some_method
"foo"
end
end
Then the stub object proves nothing, the example will succeed whether
it's there or not.
On the other hand using a mock and setting a message expectation
asserts something about the implementation of some_method and it's
relationship to the intialize method. It's more gray-box than
black-box.
--
Rick DeNatale
Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
