[rspec-users] Mocks and Refactoring - doing it wrong?
dchelimsky at gmail.com
Thu Oct 30 02:17:51 EDT 2008
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Scott Taylor
<mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2008, at 2:01 AM, Sebastian W. wrote:
>> Hi Scott,
>> Cool - I see what you're saying here. The only thing that I'm a bit
>> confused still is that it seems like, at least if your system is
>> starting to get larger, you'd really *want* your fast unit test to help
>> you catch API changes like this to help you make updates faster.
>> Having to run a suite of more expensive integration tests just to catch
>> API changes seems a little funny. But I guess I'm also hoping that
>> there's some way for the mocks to help with that sort of thing - it's my
>> understanding that some other frameworks out there help you with that
>> sort of stuff. One example mentioned to me was JMock -- granted, that's
>> Java, but still - if it's possible in Java, Ruby should be able to do it
>> too. :P
> Most certainly.
> David, et. all:
> Why don't we have a partial mock which will raise an error (or at least a
> warning) when stubbing an object who's class doesn't respond_to? the method
> given? I feel like this sort of simple dependency has been brought up 1000
> times on the list before, but never been explicitly stated.
This has come up before.
The problem is that we're dealing with a dynamic language and the
class definition may or may not include the definition of that method
at the point that the mock framework would do such an evaluation,
especially if thing are getting mocked that might otherwise be loading
modules and extending behaviour.
I'd rather have it be a known problem, but a consistent problem, then
a partially solved problem that will inevitably cause more pain that
it does today :)
>> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
More information about the rspec-users