On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Edvard Majakari
<edvard.majak...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My scenario is as follows, and so far I have not found the clean way
> to implement the following.
>
> In a method I have a method called allowed_for?(*args) used as
> follows:
>
> ...
>
> if o.allowed_for?(:foo, :bar)
> #case a
> elsif o.allowed_for(:quux, :bif)
> #case b
> elsif o.allowed_for(:baz)
> #case c
> else
> #case default
> end
>
>
> now in the spec, I'd like to say something like
>
> obj.should_allow_for(:foo)
> obj.stub!(:allowed_for? => false)
>
Try this:
obj.stub(:allowed_for) {|*args| args.include?(:foo)}
HTH,
David
>
> that is, if allowed_for? is called with varargs containing :foo it
> should return true, false otherwise.
>
> At the moment the only way I can make the spec to run is to create
> exact expectation, which is a bit too tightly coupled to the
> implementation:
>
> obj.should_receive(:allowed_for?).with(:foo, :bar).and_return ...
>
> another solution would wrap allow_for?(*args) into a single method
> call without parameter names and stubbing the wrapper methods:
>
> if o.fooey?
> #case a
> elsif o.quuxy?
> #case b
> elsif o.bazy?
> #case c
> else
> #case default
> end
>
> but I don't like it - the rules are simple and the whole method is now
> quite readable as it is. Creating one-line private methods would IMO
> add superfluous cruft and reduce legibility.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
