On 22 Feb 2012, at 15:41, David Chelimsky wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Mike Pack <mikepack...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Yup, I find myself doing this all the time. I think it should be considered >> that too deep of a stub chain could be a sign of poor >> abstraction/information hiding. Could lead to bad practices? On the >> flipside, this would be super helpful when dealing with Railsy stubs because >> of long scope chains (but IMO long scope chains should be enclosed in a >> method). >> >> Also, why not rspec core? > > First - it would be rspec-mocks, not rspec-core. > > Second - in all but the rarest cases (mostly fluent interfaces), it > exacerbates highly coupled designs by making them seemingly easier to > test (but in the long run they just add to the problems associated w/ > coupling). This is already true of stub_chain, which I already regret > including in rspec-mocks for these reasons. If @justinko introduces a > separate gem for should_receive_chain, I'd probably want to move > stub_chain to that gem as well. > > Note that I'm not saying that every use of stub_chain is incorrect, or > un-pragmatic. I just think that if there's another way to get at that > feature, rspec-mocks is better off without it.
^ Yep, what he said ^ cheers, Matt -- Freelance programmer & coach Author, http://pragprog.com/book/hwcuc/the-cucumber-book Founder, http://www.relishapp.com/ Twitter, https://twitter.com/mattwynne
_______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
