Makes sense... So would you tend to use double() in place of mock()/ stub()?
On May 27, 1:22 pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 26, 2010, at 10:01 PM, rhydiant wrote: > > > Given that RSpec has the following methods to create test doubles ... > > > double(:my_test_double) > > mock(:my_mock_object) > > stub(:my_stub) > > double(), mock(), and stub() all return the same type of object: a test > double (actually, it's a Mock, but that's for legacy reasons - the class name > might change to Double in the future). The difference between "mocking" and > "stubbing" is at the method level. I'd actually like to deprecate mock() and > stub() in the long run to reduce the noise. > > > Is there a way to/ plans to introduce a similar syntax for null > > objects? > > > null_object(:my_null_object) > > You could easily do this yourself, like this: > > def null_object(*args) > double(*args).as_null_object > end > > I don't think I'd want to add this to rspec directly, for the noise reduction > reasons I wrote above. > > > Instead of mock(:bar, :is_null_object => true) or > > mock(:foo).as_null_object > > FYI - :null_object => true is deprecated (you'll start seeing deprecation > notices in the next beta if you're using it). > > > I think this would be cleaner, what do you think? > > Clean is relative. It might be slightly less typing, but I don't know that > it's any more expressive, and IMO it increases the noise level. Another thing > to consider is that there are other "decorators" that use this same pattern: > double(name).as_something. > > That all make sense? > > Cheers, > David > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-us...@rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
