Sorry about that. I don't always jump on things like that, but this one was bugging me and I had the time so I just did it. That doesn't always happen :) I look forward to your future contributions.
Cheers, David -- David Chelimsky Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig) On Sunday, April 15, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Bas Vodde wrote: > > Hiya, > > Kewl, thanks! > > (To be honest, I was a bit disapointed as I was thinking of doing it myself > and sending it to you :P) > > Anyways, much appreciated! > > Bas > > On 16-Apr-2012, at 10:14 AM, David Chelimsky wrote: > > > Actually I just went ahead and fixed it sans-bug report: > > https://github.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/commit/fb9c76c2e40b4b25f4dcc5de95f8c60319b6d9c1. > > It'll be fixed in the next release (2.10). > > > > Cheers, > > David > > > > -- > > David Chelimsky > > Sent with Sparrow > > > > On Sunday, April 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM, David Chelimsky wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, April 15, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Bas Vodde wrote: > > > > > > > > Hiya all, > > > > > > > > I've got a quick question related to RSpec. I was test-driving some > > > > code and ended up in an endless loop. I was surprised by this, but > > > > traced it down to the mock not failing on additional calls but only in > > > > the end. Let me explain. > > > > > > > > I was writing code like this: > > > > > > > > subject.wrapper.should_receive(:window_list).exactly(4).times.and_return > > > > { > > > > counter = counter + 1 > > > > counter >= 4 ? [ "new window" ] : [] > > > > } > > > > > > > > The idea was that it would call the code-block 4 times exactly and then > > > > return a new value (and thus stop calling it). As the code to implement > > > > wasn't there yet, it led to a recursive call. I had expected RSpec to > > > > stop after 4 calls though, as I had instructed the mock that I expected > > > > exactly 4 calls. > > > > > > > > I added a new test in RSpec itself in precision_counts_spec.rb: > > > > > > > > it "fails when a method is called more than n times, but fails within > > > > the method call" do > > > > @mock.should_receive(:random_call).exactly(1).times > > > > lambda do > > > > @mock.random_call > > > > @mock.random_call > > > > end.should raise_error(RSpec::Mocks::MockExpectationError) > > > > end > > > > > > > > which failed :( (or it failed to fail and therefore failed!) > > > > > > > > It would be nice if it would fail. Is there any reason for not failing > > > > already at this point in time? > > > > > > > > (I'm using RSpec 2.6-0. I quickly browsed the latest and didn't see > > > > this changed) > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Bas > > > There is no philosophical reason for this to happen, and there are other > > > types of failures that do fail-fast (e.g. > > > obj.should_receive(:bar).with(1,2) fails immediately if it receives :bar > > > with any other args). > > > > > > Please submit this to https://github.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/issues and > > > I'll start looking into a fix. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > David > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rspec-users mailing list > > rspec-users@rubyforge.org (mailto:rspec-users@rubyforge.org) > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org (mailto: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
