mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com
Wed Jun 4 22:05:30 EDT 2008
On Jun 4, 2008, at 9:40 AM, Matt Mower wrote:
> Hi David.
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 2:24 PM, David Chelimsky
> <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>> There was an implementation of it that didn't quite work for me in
>> http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/commit/45a6837 so we reverted
>> it. I have
>> zero personal interest in this feature (use of which I find to be an
>> anti-pattern) but am open to applying a patch as long as it meets
>> described in http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/28.
> I've read the ticket, I was hoping it would explain why you feel
> any_instance is an anti-pattern.
> In my situation I am spec'ing a library that depends upon a
> lower-level for network operations. I use any_instance at certain
> points to simulate data coming from the network.
> Trying to stub :new and return a mock was very problematic for me
> because the object involved does some work with the data which my code
> depends upon for it's own behaviour. Hence to test that I end up
> having to do a lot of work in my mocks and it quickly becomes
> What I really wanted was the "genuine" object with some behaviour
> changed which is what any_instance gives me.
Why can't you give public access to the object? You'd then be able to
stub it, just as with stub_all_instances.
There's a general idea with rspec (and one which probably isn't
present in other testing frameworks) that says that testing *should*
influence your design. I'm sure this is one of the reasons that David
considers it an "anti-pattern" - as it does not influence your design
in any way. In fact, I developed the the stub_any_instance patch
because I needed to test legacy code (legacy because it wasn't
designed well), and it was the only way to get to the object.
I'm sure David would have specific examples, and I'd be curious to see
More information about the rspec-users