@ben i did read the discussion for issue#133. But i did not get the argument that at_least(0) should be a stub. @ myronmarston <https://github.com/myronmarston> comment at the end, cleared that up for me
After reading it again, i came up with https://gist.github.com/3792506 am a rspec noob so please forgive the bad example If it is not too much of a problem, can someone post some code on how to solve the issue On Wednesday, 26 September 2012 21:07:13 UTC+5:30, Ben Lovell wrote: > > Hi > > On 26 September 2012 16:16, deepak kannan <kannan...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> hi, >> >> Problem is that i want to test chained method calls. Where the method >> chain is optional >> But if the method chain is called then certain assertions apply on the >> method chain itself >> >> The object may or may not call a method. >> But if it does call the method then it has to call another method on it >> (ie. method chain) with certain arguments >> I wrote a comment explaining my actual usecase at >> https://github.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/issues/133#issuecomment-8886264 >> >> kind-of obfuscated and simplified code example is at >> https://gist.github.com/3788035 >> >> code snippet: >> mock = mock('Monitor') >> mock.should_receive(:ping).with('DS1').and_return(stub.as_null_object) >> devops.should_receive(:monitor).and_return(proxy) >> >> i read these issues >> https://github.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/issues/131 >> https://github.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/issues/133 >> >> -- >> best, >> deepak >> w: https://gist.github.com/deepak >> > > Did you read the discussion from the issue? > > https://github.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/issues/133 > > It makes a strong case as to why at_least(0) makes no sense. > > Cheers, > Ben > -- best, deepak w: https://gist.github.com/deepak
_______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
