[rspec-users] Surprised by stub/mock interaction
dchelimsky at gmail.com
Wed Feb 25 12:51:45 EST 2009
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Jeff Talbot <jeff.a.talbot at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:23 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Jeff Talbot <jeff.a.talbot at gmail.com>
>> > 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.
> Makes sense, and after thinking about it some more I think I'm fully
> satisfied with that explanation.
>> FWIW, I'd avoid mixing stub! and should_receive for cases like this,
>> just to avoid the sort of confusion you're experiencing.
> By "cases like this" I assume you mean cases where the method is invoke
> multiple times?
Yep. I'd avoid the stub in this case.
>> > Jeff
More information about the rspec-users