[rspec-users] undefined method `mock_model' for [RSpec example]:#<Class:0x25550a8>

aslak hellesoy aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com
Mon Aug 20 04:35:58 EDT 2007


On 8/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/19/07, Zach Dennis <zach.dennis at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/16/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 8/16/07, Zach Dennis <zach.dennis at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 8/16/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 8/16/07, Zach Dennis <zach.dennis at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I am getting:
> > > > > >   undefined method `mock_model' for [RSpec example]:#<Class:0x25550a8>
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact that it says [RSpec example] means that it's not the right
> > > > > class for a view spec. The plugin knows how to create the right class
> > > > > based on one of two things:
> > > > >
> > > > > If the file is below /spec/views/
> > > > >
> > > > > or
> > > > >
> > > > > describe "...", :behaviour_type => :view do
> > > > >   ...
> > > > >
> > > > > If the spec you're running satisfies either of these, you shouldn't be
> > > > > seeing this.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > with my view specs after upgrading to 1.0.8. Is anyone else seeing this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To isolate the message I did the following setup:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  - create new rails project (with edge)
> > > > > >  - installed rspec and rspec_on_rails
> > > > > >  - ran rake spec
> > > > > >  - ran script/generate rspec_scaffold products
> > > > > >  - tried to run a builtin view spec
> > > > >
> > > > > When you say "builtin view spec," do you mean one that was generated
> > > > > by running the rspec_scaffold generator?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > One that was generated by the rspec_scaffold generator,
> > >
> > > Sorry man, it should be working fine. I'm not having that experience
> > > personally - is anybody else?
> > >
> > > Zach - what platform are you on?
> > >
> >
> > I tried on OSX and also Kubuntu Feisty. I think the rspec scaffold
> > generators need to be updated to include  ", :behaviour_type =>
> > :view".
>
> I'd like to avoid that because it would be extra noise and it
> shouldn't be necessary. The generated specs work absolutely perfectly
> for me as/is (I'm on OS X). There have been a couple of bugs related
> to regexps and windows paths over time, but they've either been
> resolved or await more feedback from users in the tracker.
>
> I'm thinking about other ways to be explicit about this (besides the
> verbose ":behaviour_type => :view". What if we added methods like:
>
> describe_model
> describe_view
> describe_controller
> describe_helper
>

I like these. They are explicit.

> Or support the first argument being a Symbol:
>
> describe :model, "Thing" do
>
> I'm not sure I like those, but I kind of dislike :behaviour_type =>
> :foo as a default.
>
> WDYT?
>
> David
>
>
> >
> > Zach
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>


More information about the rspec-users mailing list