From nobrow at eircom.net  Sat Dec  8 19:41:49 2007
From: nobrow at eircom.net (nobrow at eircom.net)
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 00:41:49 +0000
Subject: [mocha-developer] Mocks and Manual Tests
Message-ID: <20071209004836.29FDA18585C7@rubyforge.org>

Is it possible for me to use Mock objects in manual testing?

They work great for functional testing, but now I need to load the pages and play around with some stuff, but of course I cant load them because there are a number of classes without implementations, which I want to just mock out.

Any ideas?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Find the home of your dreams with eircom net property
Sign up for email alerts now http://www.eircom.net/propertyalerts



From johnwilger at gmail.com  Sat Dec  8 20:03:23 2007
From: johnwilger at gmail.com (John Wilger)
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 17:03:23 -0800
Subject: [mocha-developer] Mocks and Manual Tests
In-Reply-To: <20071209004836.29FDA18585C7@rubyforge.org>
References: <20071209004836.29FDA18585C7@rubyforge.org>
Message-ID: <D199F916-8180-415E-B424-1965A4D67513@gmail.com>

That's not generally how one would use mocks, although I suppose it's  
possible. Why not just go ahead and define the missing classes? You  
can write the methods to return canned results until you're ready to  
create the real implementation.

Also - assuming you're using Rails - you can put concrete mocks in the  
test/mocks/development directory which will then override the real  
implementation when running in development mode. Personally, I think  
that's dangerous, but the option is there.

-- 
Regards,
John Wilger
(Sent from my phone - please excuse the top-post.)

On Dec 8, 2007, at 4:41 PM, <nobrow at eircom.net> wrote:

> Is it possible for me to use Mock objects in manual testing?
>
> They work great for functional testing, but now I need to load the  
> pages and play around with some stuff, but of course I cant load  
> them because there are a number of classes without implementations,  
> which I want to just mock out.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Find the home of your dreams with eircom net property
> Sign up for email alerts now http://www.eircom.net/propertyalerts
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mocha-developer mailing list
> mocha-developer at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mocha-developer

From jamesmead44 at gmail.com  Thu Dec 20 10:51:53 2007
From: jamesmead44 at gmail.com (James Mead)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:51:53 +0000
Subject: [mocha-developer] Fwd: [ mocha-Patches-16424 ] Ruby 1.9
	Compatibility
In-Reply-To: <20071220154835.1052015F8011@rubyforge.org>
References: <20071220154835.1052015F8011@rubyforge.org>
Message-ID: <1db558f00712200751s382cf541i8b6b57037c9531c2@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: noreply at rubyforge.org <noreply at rubyforge.org>
Date: 20 Dec 2007 15:48
Subject: [ mocha-Patches-16424 ] Ruby 1.9 Compatibility
To: noreply at rubyforge.org


Patches item #16424, was opened at 2007-12-19 02:43
You can respond by visiting:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=7479&aid=16424&group_id=1917

Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 3
Submitted By: Joshua Peek (joshpeek)
Assigned to: Nobody (None)
Summary: Ruby 1.9 Compatibility

Initial Comment:
Ruby 1.9 Compatibility



Tested on

* ruby 1.8.6 (2007-09-24 patchlevel 111) [universal-darwin9.0]

* ruby 1.9.0 (2007-12-11 patchlevel 0) [i686-darwin9.1.0]





----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: James Mead (jamesmead)
Date: 2007-12-20 15:48

Message:
Thanks for your help. I've tested and applied your patch and fixed a
few other warnings in revision 206 of trunk.



Cheers, James.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=7479&aid=16424&group_id=1917


As of revision 206, thanks to Joshua Peek, trunk should be Ruby 1.9
compatible. Please let us know if you run into any problems. I can see
some opportunities for simplifying some of the implementation e.g.
using the new BasicObject class, but that can wait for now.

-- 
James.
http://blog.floehopper.org
http://tumble.floehopper.org

From ned.wolpert at gmail.com  Fri Dec 21 11:02:52 2007
From: ned.wolpert at gmail.com (Ned Wolpert)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:02:52 -0700
Subject: [mocha-developer] Mocha and rails 2.0.2?
Message-ID: <33cb339b0712210802y312856fcu1e9e189102e445ad@mail.gmail.com>

Folks-

  With Rails 2.0.2, I'm seeing mocha failures where they did not fail
with Rails 2.0.1

test_set_to_process_fail_in_transaction(FileRecordTest):
NoMethodError: undefined method `ord' for 63:Fixnum
    /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:45:in
`hidden_method'
    /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:45:in
`gsub'
    /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:45:in
`hidden_method'
    /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:29:in
`hide_original_method'
    /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:14:in
`stub'
    /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/central.rb:13:in
`stub'
    /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/object.rb:40:in
`expects'
    test/unit/file_record_test.rb:90:in
`test_set_to_process_fail_in_transaction'
...

In this case, the line that is blowing up is this one:

    File.expects(:exists?).times(2).returns(true)

and fails with this too...

    File.expects(:exists?).returns(true)

further checking show it fails with stubs, like this...

    File.stubs(:exists?).returns(true)

Note I can stub or expect other methods, like save! or even 'new'..
the following works fine...

    File.expects(:new).returns(file)

Its possible I'm not doing this in a way that makes sense...
specifically, I want to stub out the method 'exists?' to return true
when its called twice. Again, it worked fine in all rails versions up
to 2.0.2, and only fails with rails 2.0.2...

Is it me?

-- 
Virtually, Ned Wolpert
http://www.codeheadsystems.com/blog/

"Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin..."   --Marlowe

From stopdropandrew at gmail.com  Fri Dec 21 15:31:02 2007
From: stopdropandrew at gmail.com (Andrew Grim)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:31:02 -0800
Subject: [mocha-developer] Mocha and rails 2.0.2?
In-Reply-To: <33cb339b0712210802y312856fcu1e9e189102e445ad@mail.gmail.com>
References: <33cb339b0712210802y312856fcu1e9e189102e445ad@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bee1c90f0712211231o1bec83efxf9d829f0162c5ca4@mail.gmail.com>

In a recent changeset they update rails to be more ruby 1.9 compatible.

File.exists? is now File.exist?

http://dev.rubyonrails.org/changeset/8365

-A

On Dec 21, 2007 8:02 AM, Ned Wolpert <ned.wolpert at gmail.com> wrote:

> Folks-
>
>  With Rails 2.0.2, I'm seeing mocha failures where they did not fail
> with Rails 2.0.1
>
> test_set_to_process_fail_in_transaction(FileRecordTest):
> NoMethodError: undefined method `ord' for 63:Fixnum
>
>  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:45:in
> `hidden_method'
>
>  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:45:in
> `gsub'
>
>  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:45:in
> `hidden_method'
>
>  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:29:in
> `hide_original_method'
>
>  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:14:in
> `stub'
>
>  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/central.rb:13:in
> `stub'
>
>  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/object.rb:40:in
> `expects'
>    test/unit/file_record_test.rb:90:in
> `test_set_to_process_fail_in_transaction'
> ...
>
> In this case, the line that is blowing up is this one:
>
>    File.expects(:exists?).times(2).returns(true)
>
> and fails with this too...
>
>    File.expects(:exists?).returns(true)
>
> further checking show it fails with stubs, like this...
>
>    File.stubs(:exists?).returns(true)
>
> Note I can stub or expect other methods, like save! or even 'new'..
> the following works fine...
>
>    File.expects(:new).returns(file)
>
> Its possible I'm not doing this in a way that makes sense...
> specifically, I want to stub out the method 'exists?' to return true
> when its called twice. Again, it worked fine in all rails versions up
> to 2.0.2, and only fails with rails 2.0.2...
>
> Is it me?
>
> --
> Virtually, Ned Wolpert
> http://www.codeheadsystems.com/blog/
>
> "Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin..."   --Marlowe
> _______________________________________________
> mocha-developer mailing list
> mocha-developer at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mocha-developer
>

From ned.wolpert at gmail.com  Fri Dec 21 17:08:14 2007
From: ned.wolpert at gmail.com (Ned Wolpert)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:08:14 -0700
Subject: [mocha-developer] Mocha and rails 2.0.2?
In-Reply-To: <bee1c90f0712211231o1bec83efxf9d829f0162c5ca4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <33cb339b0712210802y312856fcu1e9e189102e445ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<bee1c90f0712211231o1bec83efxf9d829f0162c5ca4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <33cb339b0712211408h5d51029an83cd11cba48bf847@mail.gmail.com>

Yeah, but ruby didn't change yet... least for me.  It seems like
'exist?' and 'exists?' are both valid in ruby land.

Why would mocha fail for a ruby thing?

On Dec 21, 2007 1:31 PM, Andrew Grim <stopdropandrew at gmail.com> wrote:
> In a recent changeset they update rails to be more ruby 1.9 compatible.
>
> File.exists? is now File.exist?
>
> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/changeset/8365
>
> -A
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2007 8:02 AM, Ned Wolpert <ned.wolpert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Folks-
> >
> >  With Rails 2.0.2, I'm seeing mocha failures where they did not fail
> > with Rails 2.0.1
> >
> > test_set_to_process_fail_in_transaction(FileRecordTest):
> > NoMethodError: undefined method `ord' for 63:Fixnum
> >
> >  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:45:in
> > `hidden_method'
> >
> >  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:45:in
> > `gsub'
> >
> >  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:45:in
> > `hidden_method'
> >
> >  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:29:in
> > `hide_original_method'
> >
> >  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:14:in
> > `stub'
> >
> >  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/central.rb:13:in
> > `stub'
> >
> >  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/object.rb:40:in
> > `expects'
> >    test/unit/file_record_test.rb:90:in
> > `test_set_to_process_fail_in_transaction'
> > ...
> >
> > In this case, the line that is blowing up is this one:
> >
> >    File.expects(:exists?).times(2).returns(true)
> >
> > and fails with this too...
> >
> >    File.expects(:exists?).returns(true)
> >
> > further checking show it fails with stubs, like this...
> >
> >    File.stubs(:exists?).returns(true)
> >
> > Note I can stub or expect other methods, like save! or even 'new'..
> > the following works fine...
> >
> >    File.expects(:new).returns(file)
> >
> > Its possible I'm not doing this in a way that makes sense...
> > specifically, I want to stub out the method 'exists?' to return true
> > when its called twice. Again, it worked fine in all rails versions up
> > to 2.0.2, and only fails with rails 2.0.2...
> >
> > Is it me?
> >
> > --
> > Virtually, Ned Wolpert
> > http://www.codeheadsystems.com/blog/
> >
> > "Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin..."   --Marlowe
> > _______________________________________________
> > mocha-developer mailing list
> > mocha-developer at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mocha-developer
> >
> _______________________________________________
> mocha-developer mailing list
> mocha-developer at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mocha-developer
>



-- 
Virtually, Ned Wolpert
http://www.codeheadsystems.com/blog/

"Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin..."   --Marlowe

From jamesmead44 at gmail.com  Fri Dec 21 18:56:38 2007
From: jamesmead44 at gmail.com (James Mead)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:56:38 +0000
Subject: [mocha-developer] Mocha and rails 2.0.2?
In-Reply-To: <33cb339b0712211408h5d51029an83cd11cba48bf847@mail.gmail.com>
References: <33cb339b0712210802y312856fcu1e9e189102e445ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<bee1c90f0712211231o1bec83efxf9d829f0162c5ca4@mail.gmail.com>
	<33cb339b0712211408h5d51029an83cd11cba48bf847@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1db558f00712211556v2079df58qcac0754e6256701@mail.gmail.com>

On 21/12/2007, Ned Wolpert <ned.wolpert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 2007 8:02 AM, Ned Wolpert <ned.wolpert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >  With Rails 2.0.2, I'm seeing mocha failures where they did not fail
> > > with Rails 2.0.1
> > >
> > > test_set_to_process_fail_in_transaction(FileRecordTest):
> > > NoMethodError: undefined method `ord' for 63:Fixnum
> > >
> > >  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:45:in
> > > `hidden_method'
> > >
> > >  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:45:in
> > > `gsub'
> > >
> > >  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:45:in
> > > `hidden_method'
> > >
> > >  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:29:in
> > > `hide_original_method'
> > >
> > >  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/class_method.rb:14:in
> > > `stub'
> > >
> > >  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/central.rb:13:in
> > > `stub'
> > >
> > >  /home/wolpert/svn/rubylms/vendor/plugins/mocha/lib/mocha/object.rb:40:in
> > > `expects'
> > >    test/unit/file_record_test.rb:90:in
> > > `test_set_to_process_fail_in_transaction'
> > > ...
> > >
> > > In this case, the line that is blowing up is this one:
> > >
> > >    File.expects(:exists?).times(2).returns(true)
> > >
> > > and fails with this too...
> > >
> > >    File.expects(:exists?).returns(true)
> > >
> > > further checking show it fails with stubs, like this...
> > >
> > >    File.stubs(:exists?).returns(true)
> > >
> > > Note I can stub or expect other methods, like save! or even 'new'..
> > > the following works fine...
> > >
> > >    File.expects(:new).returns(file)
> > >
> > > Its possible I'm not doing this in a way that makes sense...
> > > specifically, I want to stub out the method 'exists?' to return true
> > > when its called twice. Again, it worked fine in all rails versions up
> > > to 2.0.2, and only fails with rails 2.0.2...

Hi Ned,

I'm assuming you're using the Mocha Rails plugin with svn:externals
i.e. you had picked up revision 206 from Mocha trunk when this error
started occurring - is that correct?

I think I just re-created your bug and I've realised there was a
mistake in Mocha changeset 206. I've just committed what I think is a
fix in revision 207. Can you let me know if this fixes your problem?

Thanks for reporting the bug.

-- 
James.
http://blog.floehopper.org
http://tumble.floehopper.org

From jamesmead44 at gmail.com  Fri Dec 21 19:13:22 2007
From: jamesmead44 at gmail.com (James Mead)
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:13:22 +0000
Subject: [mocha-developer] Mocha and rails 2.0.2?
In-Reply-To: <1db558f00712211556v2079df58qcac0754e6256701@mail.gmail.com>
References: <33cb339b0712210802y312856fcu1e9e189102e445ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<bee1c90f0712211231o1bec83efxf9d829f0162c5ca4@mail.gmail.com>
	<33cb339b0712211408h5d51029an83cd11cba48bf847@mail.gmail.com>
	<1db558f00712211556v2079df58qcac0754e6256701@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1db558f00712211613u500b4f5eof5e667a62d15997e@mail.gmail.com>

The original Ruby 1.9 compatibility Mocha changeset (revision 206) was
getting confused by the change in Rails changeset 8403 [1] which tries
to make Ruby 1.8.x look more like Ruby 1.9. I've just checked in what
I think is a more robust solution in Mocha changeset 208.
-- 
James.
http://blog.floehopper.org
http://tumble.floehopper.org

From jay at jayfields.com  Fri Dec 21 22:08:58 2007
From: jay at jayfields.com (Jay Fields)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:08:58 -0800
Subject: [mocha-developer] Mocks and Manual Tests
In-Reply-To: <20071209004836.29FDA18585C7@rubyforge.org>
References: <20071209004836.29FDA18585C7@rubyforge.org>
Message-ID: <F4996D12-41F9-4693-B498-942EA33D1FCF@jayfields.com>

Mocha is great, but what you are looking for is a stub. Mocks verify  
interaction, while stubs simply return canned results.

I'd suggest simply using a stub in the test/mocks/development folder.  
Yes, it's lame that you need to put a development stub in a dir tree  
that has "test" and "mock", but it is what it is. You can also add  
your own folder and explicitly require your mock, but using the Rails  
mechanism should be good enough unless you really can't deal with the  
naming inconsistency.

To be clear, you can use mocha, but I wouldn't bother.

Cheers, Jay

On Dec 8, 2007, at 4:41 PM, <nobrow at eircom.net> <nobrow at eircom.net>  
wrote:

> Is it possible for me to use Mock objects in manual testing?
>
> They work great for functional testing, but now I need to load the  
> pages and play around with some stuff, but of course I cant load  
> them because there are a number of classes without implementations,  
> which I want to just mock out.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Find the home of your dreams with eircom net property
> Sign up for email alerts now http://www.eircom.net/propertyalerts
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mocha-developer mailing list
> mocha-developer at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mocha-developer


From jay at jayfields.com  Fri Dec 21 22:01:04 2007
From: jay at jayfields.com (Jay Fields)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:01:04 -0800
Subject: [mocha-developer] Foo.never.expects(:bar)
In-Reply-To: <1db558f00710251421w306e9b04taf78599e8186bc6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6a2b4fd00710251216o4c9166d1q7d4b7a17b992f4eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<1db558f00710251421w306e9b04taf78599e8186bc6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0340C3E8-412B-4950-82C7-8216FF757D71@jayfields.com>

Hello James et al.

I was writing a bit of code yesterday and I found myself looking for
Foo.never.expects(:bar)
Instead of
Foo.expects(:bar).never

I think the first version is more syntactically friendly.  That said,  
I haven't looked at what it would take to make this work.

Thoughts?

Cheers, Jay

From j at jonathanleighton.com  Sat Dec 22 11:22:35 2007
From: j at jonathanleighton.com (Jonathan Leighton)
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:22:35 +0000
Subject: [mocha-developer] Foo.never.expects(:bar)
In-Reply-To: <0340C3E8-412B-4950-82C7-8216FF757D71@jayfields.com>
References: <6a2b4fd00710251216o4c9166d1q7d4b7a17b992f4eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<1db558f00710251421w306e9b04taf78599e8186bc6@mail.gmail.com>
	<0340C3E8-412B-4950-82C7-8216FF757D71@jayfields.com>
Message-ID: <1198340556.7819.0.camel@tybalt>

+1 for that if it's straightforward to implement.

On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 19:01 -0800, Jay Fields wrote:
> Hello James et al.
> 
> I was writing a bit of code yesterday and I found myself looking for
> Foo.never.expects(:bar)
> Instead of
> Foo.expects(:bar).never
> 
> I think the first version is more syntactically friendly.  That said,  
> I haven't looked at what it would take to make this work.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Cheers, Jay
> _______________________________________________
> mocha-developer mailing list
> mocha-developer at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mocha-developer
> 
-- 
Jonathan Leighton, Web Developer
http://jonathanleighton.com/


From jamesmead44 at gmail.com  Sat Dec 22 13:26:04 2007
From: jamesmead44 at gmail.com (James Mead)
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:26:04 +0000
Subject: [mocha-developer] Foo.never.expects(:bar)
In-Reply-To: <1198340556.7819.0.camel@tybalt>
References: <6a2b4fd00710251216o4c9166d1q7d4b7a17b992f4eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<1db558f00710251421w306e9b04taf78599e8186bc6@mail.gmail.com>
	<0340C3E8-412B-4950-82C7-8216FF757D71@jayfields.com>
	<1198340556.7819.0.camel@tybalt>
Message-ID: <1db558f00712221026r59a79ac1m65fce98b325a5c21@mail.gmail.com>

On 22/12/2007, Jonathan Leighton <j at jonathanleighton.com> wrote:
> > I think the first version is more syntactically friendly.

Agreed.

> > That said, I haven't looked at what it would take to make this work.

The problem is that the implementation for this would add another
method to the Object class which I'd rather avoid because it pollutes
the method name-space of every class. However all is not lost -
coincidentally I've been playing with some significantly different
syntax which would address the same issue. More soon...

-- 
James.
http://blog.floehopper.org
http://tumble.floehopper.org

From jamesmead44 at gmail.com  Sun Dec 23 04:30:57 2007
From: jamesmead44 at gmail.com (James Mead)
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:30:57 +0000
Subject: [mocha-developer] Fwd: [ mocha-Bugs-16523 ] Ruby 1.9 gives warning
In-Reply-To: <20071222235647.E87EC18585C7@rubyforge.org>
References: <20071222235647.E87EC18585C7@rubyforge.org>
Message-ID: <1db558f00712230130i16f893bai3cdae185d5f4db3a@mail.gmail.com>

FYI - I've just released Mocha 0.5.6 to make Ruby 1.9 compatibility
fixes available for those using  released packages rather than
subversion trunk. I'm not feeling well and so haven't been able to
test it other than by running all the tests using Ruby 1.9. Please let
me know if you have any problems using it. Remember that it sometimes
takes a while for a new gem version to be propagated to the mirrors.

-- 
James.
http://blog.floehopper.org
http://tumble.floehopper.org


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: noreply at rubyforge.org <noreply at rubyforge.org>
Date: 22 Dec 2007 23:56
Subject: [ mocha-Bugs-16523 ] Ruby 1.9 gives warning
To: noreply at rubyforge.org


Bugs item #16523, was opened at 2007-12-22 22:35
You can respond by visiting:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=7477&aid=16523&group_id=1917

Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 3
Submitted By: Kornelius Kalnbach (murphy)
Assigned to: Nobody (None)
Summary: Ruby 1.9 gives warning

Initial Comment:
Ruby 1.9 has some new warnings that Ruby 1.8 didn't show, maybe it's useful:



  lib/mocha/return_values.rb:22: warning: else without rescue is useless



----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Kornelius Kalnbach (murphy)
Date: 2007-12-23 00:56

Message:
can you compile a gem (1.0.0 please ;) and mail it to me so

I can test it here?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: James Mead (jamesmead)
Date: 2007-12-23 00:44

Message:
Ok. I'm pretty sure that bug is already fixed in trunk. I guess it
could be time to release another gem. I'll get to it as soon as I have
some time. Thanks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Kornelius Kalnbach (murphy)
Date: 2007-12-23 00:39

Message:
the newest one - 0.5.5. it throws syntax errors currently:



/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.9/gems/mocha-0.5.5/lib/mocha/return_values.rb:19:

syntax error, unexpected ':', expecting keyword_then or ','

or ';' or '\n' (SyntaxError)

      when 0: nil

             ^

/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.9/gems/mocha-0.5.5/lib/mocha/return_values.rb:31:

syntax error, unexpected keyword_end, expecting $end

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: James Mead (jamesmead)
Date: 2007-12-22 23:13

Message:
Thanks for reporting it. Can you tell us what version of Mocha you are
using and what code causes this warning. I've removed all the warnings
generated by Ruby 1.9 when the Mocha tests are run, so maybe we're
missing a test...?



Thanks, James.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=7477&aid=16523&group_id=1917

From ned.wolpert at gmail.com  Sun Dec 23 11:33:08 2007
From: ned.wolpert at gmail.com (Ned Wolpert)
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:33:08 -0700
Subject: [mocha-developer] Mocha and rails 2.0.2?
In-Reply-To: <1db558f00712211613u500b4f5eof5e667a62d15997e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <33cb339b0712210802y312856fcu1e9e189102e445ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<bee1c90f0712211231o1bec83efxf9d829f0162c5ca4@mail.gmail.com>
	<33cb339b0712211408h5d51029an83cd11cba48bf847@mail.gmail.com>
	<1db558f00712211556v2079df58qcac0754e6256701@mail.gmail.com>
	<1db558f00712211613u500b4f5eof5e667a62d15997e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <33cb339b0712230833u67c9e834r4547ad4d3e256cf0@mail.gmail.com>

Yeah, I'm using the trunk... and got the latest update. I tested this
last night and it seems to work just fine now. Thanks for the update.

On Dec 21, 2007 5:13 PM, James Mead <jamesmead44 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The original Ruby 1.9 compatibility Mocha changeset (revision 206) was
> getting confused by the change in Rails changeset 8403 [1] which tries
> to make Ruby 1.8.x look more like Ruby 1.9. I've just checked in what
> I think is a more robust solution in Mocha changeset 208.
>
> --
> James.
> http://blog.floehopper.org
> http://tumble.floehopper.org
> _______________________________________________
> mocha-developer mailing list
> mocha-developer at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mocha-developer
>



-- 
Virtually, Ned Wolpert
http://www.codeheadsystems.com/blog/

"Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin..."   --Marlowe