[rspec-users] mock_model

David Chelimsky 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
at http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec-rails/tree/master/lib/spec/rails/example/rails_example_group.rb
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
>  benefit).

Not sure what you mean here either. Can you elaborate?

More information about the rspec-users mailing list