Rick, could you elaborate on this? I'm curious, how would you use a shared example group here, given his sample code?
My first thought was to use ancestors to get the parent class, and re-define the 'a' method there to do something simple and observable, and then test that. Is that evil? On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denat...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Zhi-Qiang Lei <zhiqiang....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Sep 30, 2010, at 9:56 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote: > > > > >> What you really should be testing that the observable effects of the > >> call are 'as if' the super call were made. > >> > >> If you could test that the super call was made it would be testing > >> that the implementation were a certain way more than the behavior of > >> the object, and that's the road to writing brittle tests. > > > > > In my case, there is already a test case for the method in class A, and > its feature is complex. So I was trying to test the super call but > observable effect for simple. Anyway, thank you both. > > That's what shared example groups are for. > > > -- > Rick DeNatale > > Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/ > Github: http://github.com/rubyredrick > Twitter: @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 >
_______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
