Thanks for the suggestion! I agree with Jon, though, for a couple reasons: - Consistency: currently the default behavior is the same for expect and allow against *all* types of test doubles (including partial doubles). Changing the default behavior for one specific situations (using expect on a partial double) is, IMO, quite confusing. Consider, for example, this bit of code: expect(foo).to receive(:bar); foo.bar. If we made the change, what would it do? It would depend on what foo was, which might not be obvious from looking at the example in isolation (foo might be provided by a helper method defined in a module in a separate file or something). - Safer: in many cases, people are mocking or stubbing a method to prevent it from doing something they don’t want to happen in a test. If the default was and_call_original, it would surprisingly do the thing they are trying to prevent, which could have dangerous consequences. This would especially be a problem with long time RSpec users who expect the existing behavior and aren’t aware of the change. - Inertia: this would be a massive breaking change for most folks and for every person who wants this change (like yourself) I expect we’d have at least 2 who would be against it.
Myron On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Jon Rowe <[email protected]> wrote: > Personally, given than spec-mocks is primarily intended for creating test > doubles and stubbing objects I feel this would be a perverse default, in > the limited cases where stubbing a real object is a good idea you almost > never want this to happen, I can kind of see this sort of behaviour might > be expected in rspec-expectations but I don’t feel like it should be the > default in mocks. > > Remember that the majority of `expect(something).to receive` calls are > going to be in cases where something is a double and has no real behaviour > in the first place. > > Jon Rowe > --------------------------- > [email protected] > jonrowe.co.uk > > On Tuesday, 15 September 2015 at 11:49, Brian John wrote: > > I've been using rspec for a few years now and one thing has bothered me > since the switch to the new *expect* syntax. For partial mocks, when > using allow/expect(something).to receive... it reads more like a spy to > me than a stub. Using an example from the README: > > expect(Person).to receive(:find) > > Reading this like a sentence, I would expect *Person* to receive a call > to *find*...and that's it. Nothing in the above indicates to me that the > *find* method should also be stubbed. The stub behavior seems like a side > effect. > > My proposal would be to change the default behavior of *receive* so that > *and_call_original* is the default behavior. An additional method could > be added to to trigger the stub behavior. So the equivalent behavior for > the above example would read something like this: > > expect(Person).to receive(:find).and_stub > > Obviously making this change would be relatively painful in that: > * some may not agree that this is the correct behavior > * those that are used to the prior behavior would have to get used to the > new behavior > * it would break a lot of existing tests > > Given the above I wanted to post here to see how others felt before > submitting a pull request. My apologies if this has already been discussed, > I did a search of the issues in the rspec-mocks repository and this forum > and I couldn't find anything. > > -- > 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]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rspec/8d5d5525-5749-4284-b8d7-e38833758d13%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rspec/8d5d5525-5749-4284-b8d7-e38833758d13%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > 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]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rspec/E66977996C89404F837AD40B422F324A%40jonrowe.co.uk > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rspec/E66977996C89404F837AD40B422F324A%40jonrowe.co.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rspec/CADUxQmvFT8%2B7XXj%3DJ04Gqd4Pxw2J1Y1u6wJg3QeEbqio%2BVJaJw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
