On Jan 18, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Wilker wrote: > David > > Also, will be nice if in the future you and other mock frameworks authors > support some kind of reflection on defined doubles (or even better, I can > define an "Aidmock support guideline" to you implement support by > yourselves). If you take a look at current RSpec Mocks driver on Aidmock[1] > you will see that I need to use a lot of "instance_variable_get" to > accomplish the work, and it has a serious risk to broke in any rspec-mocks > update... > > WDYT?
I'd be willing to do that in the long run, but I'd want to see how aidmock shapes up in terms of acceptance and usage first. The last thing I want in rspec is a bunch of extra code that nobody is using. > [1] > https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock/blob/master/lib/aidmock/frameworks/rspec.rb > --- > Wilker Lúcio > http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio > Kajabi Consultant > +55 81 82556600 > > > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Wilker <wilkerlu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dave, I just updated the gem and documentation, now supporting constrained_to > on mocks :) > > You have any other suggestions for now? > > --- > Wilker Lúcio > http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio > Kajabi Consultant > +55 81 82556600 > > > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Wilker <wilkerlu...@gmail.com> wrote: > You are right Dave, > > I was thinking about it, but with a different interface, like: > > Aidmock.double(Interface) > > but I mean your is cooler, and user will be able to apply mocks/stubs directly > > I will work on it today :) > > Thanks > --- > Wilker Lúcio > http://about.me/wilkerlucio/bio > Kajabi Consultant > +55 81 82556600 > > > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:45 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Wilker wrote: > >> Hi guys, >> >> I launched some days ago a new project that aims to make the use of mocks >> safer. >> This is the URL of project: https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock >> >> The basic idea is to make user define interfaces of classes, when user >> defines the class interface (which is something like defining method >> signatures on C or Java) Aidmock automatic generate some sanity check >> specs, these specs will verify if class has the method defined, and if >> it respect arity of interface. >> >> And more important, when user create mocks while developing specs, it >> will verify all defined mocks, and check if they are respecting >> defined interface. >> >> You can saw more about project motivation here(with some example of >> why it exists): https://github.com/wilkerlucio/aidmock/wiki/Motivation >> >> This project is a kind of experimental one, with a different idea, and >> any feedback will be really welcome. > > Hi Wilker, > > There have been numerous requests for a tool that would warn when mocking > method that don't exist, and I think it is great that you are working on > aidmock. > > In the Motivation wiki page, you say that you recommend using real objects > instead of mocks in all cases. I don't agree with this, as an important basis > for mock objects is the idea that we should mock roles, not objects [1]. > > I imagine that aidmock could work equally well with real objects and mock > objects if there were a hook to tell a mock what interfaces it is allowed to > stub. Something like: > > account = double('account').constrained_to(MyInterface) > > WDYT? > > [1] http://static.mockobjects.com/files/mockrolesnotobjects.pdf > > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
