[rspec-users] Surprised by stub/mock interaction

David Chelimsky dchelimsky at gmail.com
Wed Feb 25 11:23:52 EST 2009


On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Jeff Talbot <jeff.a.talbot at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Something I do often is use stub methods in before blocks and mock
> expectations in a specific examples (much like described here:
> http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2006/11/9/tutorial-rspec-stubs-and-mocks).
>
> I was just surprised with an instance of doing this and I thought I'd check
> with the group to see if I shouldn't have been.
>
> What should be the expected output of the following -- assume it's the only
> code in a spec file:
>
>   class Foo; def bar; end; end
>
>   it "should print something" do
>     foo = Foo.new
>     foo.stub!(:bar).and_return(true)
>     foo.should_receive(:bar).at_least(:once).and_return(false)
>     puts foo.bar
>     puts foo.bar
>   end
>
> I expected "false / false". The actual output is "false / true".

"false / true" is correct.

The first call to foo.bar satisfies the message expectation
(should_receive), so the message expectation is no longer paying
attention after that. If there was no stub, it would field any
subsequent calls, but in this case the stub gets it.

FWIW, I'd avoid mixing stub! and should_receive for cases like this,
just to avoid the sort of confusion you're experiencing.

Cheers,
David

>
> Jeff
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>


More information about the rspec-users mailing list