[rspec-users] Mocks: expectations vs spying

[Matt Wynne]

So if I want to have a spec suite which uses a combination of mocking  
frameworks, is this possible?

Maybe if some of the files include ../not_a_mock_spec_helper and the  
others include ../default_spec_helper and then both those files  
require some common spec_helper file?

On 21 Oct 2008, at 14:47, David Chelimsky wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Matt Wynne <matt at mattwynne.net>  
> wrote:
>>
>> On 19 Oct 2008, at 21:18, Ashley Moran wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 19, 2008, at 9:32 am, Matt Wynne wrote:
>>>
>>>>> [1] http://notahat.com/not_a_mock
>>>>
>>>> Looks sweet - it will be in my first mock on Monday!
>>
>> Thinking about it - how do you use multiple mocking frameworks in a  
>> given
>> project?
>>
>> Is it safe to re-open a Spec::Runner.configure do |config| block at  
>> the top
>> of an individual spec after I've loaded spec_helper (which will  
>> have to be
>> configured to use the default rspec mocking that 90% of the project  
>> uses)?
>
> Not really. The problem is that examples are stored for evaluation
> later, whereas the configuration is evaluated right away.
>
> The reason rspec won't support using multiple mock frameworks is rspec
> mocks and mocha both extend Object (to support mock behaviour on real
> objects) and they use the same methods to create instances of mocks.
>
> I think that if we wanted to support multiple mock frameworks, all of
> the frameworks would have to offer an explicit mode where you could
> extend objects to behave like mocks but would have to do so explicitly
> for each object. Flexmock already works this way.
>
> FWIW,
> David
>
>>
>> cheers,
>> Matt
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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