[mocha-developer] Fwd: Dealing with exec?

James Mead jamesmead44 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 3 16:03:56 EDT 2006

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Mead <jamesmead44 at gmail.com>
Date: 01-Sep-2006 21:35
Subject: Re: Dealing with exec?
To: Kevin Clark <kevin.clark at gmail.com>

On 01/09/06, Kevin Clark <kevin.clark at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry to bug you. I was curious how you'd handle a call to exec in a
> method you were testing. Kernel.stubs(:exec)... doesn't seem to work
> but I'm not sure where else an exec call might come from. Ideas?

Hmm. That's starting to get a bit gnarly. The Kernel module methods are
included into all objects, but they are private. As a safety feature, Mocha
currently requires that the object you are messing with must respond_to? the
method you want to mock/stub. Unfortunately for you, the standard use of
respond_to? returns false for a private method. However, I have put a
slightly nasty workaround here <http://pastie.caboo.se/11299>. See what you
think. I am loath to change the default behaviour for Mocha in this regard,
but I suppose there could be a :force => true type option.

I'm going to push hard to get mocha and stubba into Rails (or atleast
> allow it for tests on the framework). It just saves me too much work
> to ignore.
> http://glu.ttono.us/articles/2006/09/01/the-flexibility-of-mocha

Thanks for the kind words and good luck with the efforts at persuasion. Let
me know if I can help.

One final word of caution - I think Mocha gives you plenty of rope to hang
yourself with. I realise that you are retro-fitting tests to an existing
framework, but its far better to avoid use of the "partial mocking" aspect
of Mocha by test-driving your design in the first place.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mocha-developer/attachments/20060903/5005b7c7/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the mocha-developer mailing list