I'm having a lot of trouble stubbing out an association extension for
some view tests. Example rails code modeling a music album:
class Album < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :songs do
def streamable
find(:all, :conditions => 'streamable = 1')
end
end
end
So for a given Album in
On Jan 10, 2008 12:35 PM, Chris Kampmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm having a lot of trouble stubbing out an association extension for
> some view tests. Example rails code modeling a music album:
>
> class Album < ActiveRecord::Base
>has_many :songs do
> def streamable
>find
On 1/10/08, Chris Kampmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/10/08, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > album = mock("album")
> > songs = mock("songs")
> > album.stub!(:songs).and_return(songs)
> > songs.stub!(:streamable).and_return(true)
> >
> > That's the general idea. Specifics wi
On 1/10/08, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> album = mock("album")
> songs = mock("songs")
> album.stub!(:songs).and_return(songs)
> songs.stub!(:streamable).and_return(true)
>
> That's the general idea. Specifics will vary for each example.
If I do this, I end up with a mock object
On 1/10/08, Rick DeNatale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So why not
>
> songs = [song1, song2, song3]
> album.stub!(:songs).and_return(songs)
> songs.stub!(:streamable).and_return([song1, song2])
Oh, of course. Thank you.
I think my mind was in a rut of "must use mock or mock_model" and I didn't
It's interesting that this thread has started because I just ran into
this problem.
The error I got was:
NoMethodError in 'Signup she be a valid mac address'
protected method `normalize_mac' called for #
./spec/models/signup_spec.rb:10:
Here's the spec:
describe Signup do
before(:each) do
Apart from private or public methods I see a problem in your test case.
You don't make sure that your mac_address is returned in exactly the way
you want - you are merely saying it should look like the return value of
some (protected) method you call (normalize_mac).
Let's assume this method was
On 10.1.2008, at 22.21, Francois Wurmus wrote:
> Apart from private or public methods I see a problem in your test
> case.
> You don't make sure that your mac_address is returned in exactly the
> way
> you want - you are merely saying it should look like the return
> value of
> some (protec
Even my suggestion wouldn't be a sufficient spec. What about completely
wrong mac addresses? Empty addresses, too many characters, invalid
characters?
It is not for nothing that the rspec test cases are called examples -
you may define any number of example inputs and expected outputs that
are
On Jan 10, 2008 12:34 PM, Francois Wurmus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even my suggestion wouldn't be a sufficient spec. What about completely
> wrong mac addresses? Empty addresses, too many characters, invalid
> characters?
I just sent a reply that crossed wires with yours...anyway,
introducing
Yes, you're absolutely right. I somehow ignored the class name in my
previous answers, but that would have been the next point of attack. ;-)
Pat Maddox schrieb:
> On Jan 10, 2008 12:34 PM, Francois Wurmus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Even my suggestion wouldn't be a sufficient spec. What abou
On Jan 10, 2008 12:25 PM, Jarkko Laine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, this line of code is a bit smelly:
>
> >> normalized = @signup.normalize_mac(@signup.mac_address)
>
> Since normalize_mac is an instance method in the Signup class, there's
> no point passing the mac_address as a paramet
Hey, we're currently using shoulda (http://dev.thoughtbot.com/
shoulda/) on a project and I saw some things that would be really nice
to see in rspec, namely the should_ methods, and especially the
should_be_restful method. Do these go against the rspec goals at
all? Or could an ambitious
On 1/10/08, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey, we're currently using shoulda (http://dev.thoughtbot.com/
> shoulda/) on a project and I saw some things that would be really nice
> to see in rspec, namely the should_ methods, and especially the
> should_be_restful method. Do these go a
Hmm, that includes a good number of them, but there's still the
restful resource to think about, which is in my opinion the most
valuable one. Would you consider the addition of a restful resource
matcher similar to shoulda's?
Nathan Sutton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rspec 1.1
rspec_on_rails 1.1
rai
On 1/10/08, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm, that includes a good number of them, but there's still the
> restful resource to think about, which is in my opinion the most
> valuable one. Would you consider the addition of a restful resource
> matcher similar to shoulda's?
Yes. If
We'll see if I get around to it. It would be a lot of work, I think,
and I know a couple people who have started similar efforts.
Nathan Sutton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rspec 1.1
rspec_on_rails 1.1
rails 2.0.2
On Jan 10, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Josh Knowles wrote:
> On 1/10/08, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTE
Also, that strikes me as strange that the current philosophy is that
for the rspec_on_rails plugin. I would think rails-specific matchers
would be endorsed at some point, since rails is so big on convention.
Nathan Sutton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rspec 1.1
rspec_on_rails 1.1
rails 2.0.2
On Jan 10,
On Jan 10, 2008 5:50 PM, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, that strikes me as strange that the current philosophy is that
> for the rspec_on_rails plugin. I would think rails-specific matchers
> would be endorsed at some point, since rails is so big on convention.
It's actually qui
There David goes, making sense again.
Nathan Sutton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rspec 1.1
rspec_on_rails 1.1
rails 2.0.2
On Jan 10, 2008, at 5:59 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2008 5:50 PM, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Also, that strikes me as strange that the current philosop
On Jan 10, 2008 6:02 PM, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nathan Sutton
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> rspec 1.1
> rspec_on_rails 1.1
> rails 2.0.2
I love that your sig has your rspec and rails versions. That cracks me up.
___
rspec-users mailing list
r
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 17:59 -0600, David Chelimsky wrote:
> Another issue is BDD philosophy. BDD is about behaviour. should
> have_many(:posts) is not behaviour. It is structure. I understand that
> there are people who view this differently, and I would not want to
> get in the way of anyone using
Speaking for myself, since I support the same philosophy, I wouldn't
test the association. I don't care that it has_many posts. I might
care that I can add multiple posts, or that I can find posts by
criteria, so I would test that.
JD
On Jan 10, 2008, at 4:04 PM, Jonathan Leighton wrote:
>
Hey now! Really though, have you ever been digging through old
mailing lists and wondered which version they were using when they had
that issue? Or when someone posts and issue, you need to ask them
what versions of everything they're using? It can be a pain and it
usually wastes time/e
http://peepcode.com/products/rspec-user-stories
Shane Mingins
ELC Technologies (TM)
1921 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: +64 4 568 6684
Mobile: +64 21 435 586
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AIM: ShaneMingins
Skype: shane.mingins
(866) 863-7365 Tel - Santa Barbara Office
(866) 893-19
On Jan 10, 2008 6:04 PM, Jonathan Leighton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 17:59 -0600, David Chelimsky wrote:
> > Another issue is BDD philosophy. BDD is about behaviour. should
> > have_many(:posts) is not behaviour. It is structure. I understand that
> > there are people who v
On Jan 10, 2008 6:07 PM, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey now! Really though, have you ever been digging through old
> mailing lists and wondered which version they were using when they had
> that issue? Or when someone posts and issue, you need to ask them
> what versions of everyt
Well then, hop to! ;)
Nathan Sutton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rspec 1.1
rspec_on_rails 1.1
rails 2.0.2
On Jan 10, 2008, at 6:10 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2008 6:07 PM, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Hey now! Really though, have you ever been digging through old
>> mailing
On Jan 10, 2008, at 4:11 PM, Nathan Sutton wrote:
> Well then, hop to! ;)
> Nathan Sutton
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> rspec 1.1
> rspec_on_rails 1.1
> rails 2.0.2
>
> On Jan 10, 2008, at 6:10 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> On Jan 10, 2008 6:07 PM, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> Hey no
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 18:09 -0600, David Chelimsky wrote:
> It has more to do with what I'm looking at in my specs than what lies
> under the hood. Why do I care if a visitor has_many(:posts)? Maybe
> there is something different about a blogger with no posts vs one with
> 50. So I'd have an exampl
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 18:47 -0500, Josh Knowles wrote:
> On 1/10/08, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hmm, that includes a good number of them, but there's still the
> > restful resource to think about, which is in my opinion the most
> > valuable one. Would you consider the addition o
On Jan 10, 2008 4:17 PM, Jonathan Leighton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In principle, yes. But what if your association isn't that interesting.
> What if it is literally has_many :posts and that's it. You still want to
> make sure it will work (for instance that the posts.blogger_id column
> actual
You should browse over how shoulda does it here:
http://thoughtbot.com/projects/shoulda/tutorial/controllers
and here:
http://dev.thoughtbot.com/shoulda/classes/ThoughtBot/Shoulda/Controller/ClassMethods.html
Nathan Sutton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rspec 1.1
rspec_on_rails 1.1
rails 2.0.2
On Jan 10, 200
On Jan 10, 2008 6:48 PM, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You should browse over how shoulda does it here:
> http://thoughtbot.com/projects/shoulda/tutorial/controllers
Or how others are supplying plugins for rspec:
http://weblog.techno-weenie.net/2007/12/26/controller-specs-are-a-drag
That too :)
Nathan Sutton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rspec 1.1
rspec_on_rails 1.1
rails 2.0.2
On Jan 10, 2008, at 6:59 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2008 6:48 PM, Nathan Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> You should browse over how shoulda does it here:
>> http://thoughtbot.com/projects/s
Hi all - does anyone know of a good blog post or wiki or something
with a good guide to mocking? I've got some degree of responsibility
for people who are creating mocks. I'm supposed to actually be telling
them the best way to do it.
In some cases we have code with like a bazillion mock(:x) state
On Jan 10, 2008 7:24 PM, Giles Bowkett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all - does anyone know of a good blog post or wiki or something
> with a good guide to mocking?
http://www.jmock.org/oopsla2004.pdf
Cheers,
David
>I've got some degree of responsibility
> for people who are creating mocks. I'
We have a custom implementation of the Mother Object idea. It's inside
of a module, basically like this:
module Factory
%w(account friendship person invitation message asset email_address
birth).each do |klass|
eval <<-EOF
def self.create_#{klass}(attrib
This applies to anyone using rspec's trunk from >= 3220 with ZenTest <= 3.7.2.
Anyone else, feel free to move on
The next release of ZenTest, coming soon, includes some changes that
improve the relationship between Autotest, it's subclasses (like those
in rspec) and .autotest, the file that y
> Hi all - does anyone know of a good blog post or wiki or something
> with a good guide to mocking? I've got some degree of responsibility
> for people who are creating mocks. I'm supposed to actually be telling
> them the best way to do it.
There's ots of good stuff in here:
http://martinfowler
Your implementation looks so much like a ModelFactory my team
implemented last week that it's scary. Anyway ...
Is it a typo that you show the "create_..." methods being def'd as
module methods (i.e., "def self.create...") while the
"valid_..._attribute" methods are instance methods? That would
It's not a typo. However, since I'm not the only one to think this, I
might make a set of module methods, which can be called by the non-
module methods to avoid breaking the current specs. Any idea why one
works (specs) and the other doesn't (stories)?
James Deville
http://devillecompanies.
On Jan 10, 2008, at 8:27 PM, James Deville wrote:
> We have a custom implementation of the Mother Object idea. It's inside
> of a module, basically like this:
>
> module Factory
> %w(account friendship person invitation message asset email_address
> birth).each do |klass|
> e
43 matches
Mail list logo
