On Jan 18, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Wilker wrote: > Yeah, unfortunately I'm not receiving too much feedback about it for now, so, > I'm just using for myself and trying to make it better. I will try to spread > more and more the idea, so make more people wanna try it, its a different > concept and I mean people still a little afraid to try it. But I will keep > going on it, I really believe in the idea :)
Wilker: not sure what you were expecting, but you just announced it on this list 2 days ago :) Give it a bit more time. Everybody else: come on, people! Many of you have been asking for some sort of auditing tool for mocks that tell you when you're mocking stuff that doesn't exist, and Wilker here is finally offering a workable solution. Feedback, please :) Cheers, David > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 7:12 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
