[rspec-users] Can I use mocking in this way?
matt at mattwynne.net
Sun Apr 4 05:33:08 EDT 2010
When I started programming Ruby and I wanted abstract classes I would
raise an exception in the initialize method telling the client that
they were trying to instantiate an abstract class. That was my best
attempt at self-documenting code at the time.
Nowadays, however, when I have behaviour that is abstract, I just put
it in a module. That feels like much more idiomatic Ruby.
On 4 Apr 2010, at 05:00, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Julian Leviston
> <julian at leviston.net> wrote:
>> On 04/04/2010, at 7:32 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Vojto Rinik <zero0xxx at gmail.com>
>>>> Hello RSpec users!
>>>> I have one abstract class and a few classes that inherit from
>>>> that abstract
>>> Ruby doesn't have abstract classes. You can have a base class that
>>> don't _intend_ to instantiate directly, but there's nothing stopping
>>> you from doing so, so it's not like an abstract class in java, which
>>> you actually can't instantiate directly.
>>> I've seen some cases where the initialize method is made private so
>>> you can't just call Foo.new, so it sort of feels like an abstract
>>> class, but even in that case you can still use send() to instantiate
>>> one in a test:
>> How about if you overrode new and __new__ ?
> Then override the override. AFAIK, there's really no preventing a
> client from using an object however it chooses in Ruby. You can make
> it difficult, but I'm pretty sure there's always a way around it.
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
More information about the rspec-users