dchelimsky at gmail.com
Thu Apr 10 17:28:15 EDT 2008
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Ashley Moran
<ashley.moran at patchspace.co.uk> wrote:
> David: +1 for stub_model, but could you make it autodetect if the stub
> is for an attribute or a method? It would be nice to do away with
> the :attr and :stub distinction.
Not sure what you mean here - that is handled transparently by
stub_model so you don't have to make any such distinction. Take a look
and see if it sheds some light.
> I have to say, though, I don't see
> the advantage of using a real object as the basis for the mock as long
> as one is used as a sanity check for the stubs (maybe I am missing a
Not sure what you mean here either. Can you elaborate?
More information about the rspec-users