On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:55 PM, clay s <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why does RSpec allow you set a return value on a mocked method? If the > method returns a value, then the dependent code will already have testable > behavioral differences based on the return value, making the mocking > superfluous. We use mocks to specify that an interaction is supposed to happen: I expect x to receive the message foo. When you express this in rspec, or pretty much any other mocking tool, when x receives foo it will return nil by default. If another part of the code requires a return value from x.foo in order to continue working, you have to tell x to return a reasonable value when it receives foo. Hence: x.should_receive(:foo).and_return(:a_reasonable_value) If you don't care about specifying that x receives foo, then sure, you can just use a stub. But it really depends on what you're trying to express. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rspec" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
