On 7 Nov 2011, at 18:37, Justin Ko wrote: > On Nov 2, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Rob Aldred wrote: > >> >> I'm pretty sure this has probably been discussed before. >> I'm using couchdb (couchrest_model) >> >> When speccing my controller i want to set expectations that im calling my >> couch views correctly. >> The query interface has recently been updated to work very similar to ARel >> >> This means i have to rewrite some of my specs. >> >> Old call: >> >> Exam.by_created_at_and_not_archived(:start_key => [@exam.created_at], >> :endkey => ['0'],:limit => 2) >> >> I set an expectation on that easily like so: >> >> Exam.should_receive(:by_created_at_and_not_archived). >> with(:startkey => [@exam1.created_at],:endkey => ['0'],:limit => 2). >> and_return([@exam1,@exam2]) >> >> However the new api i doesn't seem that easy to work with: >> >> >> Exam.by_created_at_and_not_archived.startkey([@exam.created_at]).endkey(['0']).limit(2) >> >> I could use stub_chain, but that doesn't allow me to check the params being >> passes to the calls other than the last. >> I could also create a wrapper method on my Exam model that is called from >> the controller with hash params, >> however that just shifts the problem, I then have to check the expections in >> the model spec instead. >> >> Suggestions on how best to go about that would be appreciated. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rspec-users mailing list >> rspec-users@rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > > Exam.should_receive(:by_created_at_and_not_archived).and_return( > double('startkey').tap {|startkey| > startkey.should_receive(:startkey).with([@exam.created_at]).and_return( > double('endkey').tap {|endkey| > endkey.should_receive(:endkey).with(['0']).and_return( > double('limit').tap {|limit| > limit.should_receive(:limit).with(2).and_return([@exam1, @exam2]) > } > ) > } > ) > } > ) > > LOL, this is the ugliest code I've written all year. You'd might want to use > variables for readability:
...or even wrap this Exam thing in an abstraction layer? Can anyone else hear the tests screaming? :) cheers, Matt -- Freelance programmer & coach Author, http://pragprog.com/book/hwcuc/the-cucumber-book (with Aslak Hellesøy) Founder, http://relishapp.com +44(0)7974430184 | http://twitter.com/mattwynne _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
