I've always used the idiom of stub collaborations in a before block
and then focus in specific examples with should_receive. (e.g.
should_receive takes presence over stub). I was just attempting to
write an example for caching behavior and ran into something counter-
intuitive, at least
Forgot to mention: rspec 1.2.9
On Dec 1, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Lenny Marks wrote:
I've always used the idiom of stub collaborations in a before block
and then focus in specific examples with should_receive. (e.g.
should_receive takes presence over stub). I was just attempting to
write an
On Dec 01, 2009, at 4:46 pm, Lenny Marks wrote:
This seems dangerous to me. Assuming I hadn't initially stubbed in the before
block and everything worked as expected, if someone later stubs :lookup in
the before block because they are adding new examples that don't care about
it, my
On Dec 1, 2009, at 1:24 PM, Ashley Moran wrote:
On Dec 01, 2009, at 4:46 pm, Lenny Marks wrote:
This seems dangerous to me. Assuming I hadn't initially stubbed in
the before block and everything worked as expected, if someone
later stubs :lookup in the before block because they are
On Dec 01, 2009, at 7:34 pm, Lenny Marks wrote:
Thanks Ashley. I added my 2 cents to the ticket.
Just had a look over your comments. It's a complicated issue... I hope David
can reconcile it. I'm not sure what the best solution is.
Ashley
--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
