[rspec-users] respond_to? check in rspec-mocks
jko170 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 27 20:42:32 EDT 2010
On Aug 27, 8:24 pm, Justin Ko <jko... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 27, 8:18 pm, Myron Marston <myron.mars... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > One of the primary dangers of using mocks is that your unit tests may
> > be testing against an interface that is different from that of your
> > production objects. You may simply have misspelled the method (e.g.
> > object.should_receive(:methd_name) rather than method_name), or you
> > may have changed the interface of your production object without
> > updating your tests.
> > Obviously, you should have some integration coverage that will catch
> > these kinds of errors (and I do), but it's nice when they're caught by
> > your unit tests since they're so much faster than integration tests.
> > I've been using a pattern to help with this for a while:
> > it "safely mocks a method" do
> > object.should respond_to(:foo)
> > object.should_receive(:foo).and_return(:bar)
> > object.do_something_that_calls_foo
> > end
> > Basically, I add a respond_to? check before mocking or stubbing a
> > concrete object (obviously, I don't do this for a pure mock object).
> > If/when I rename the mocked method, I'll get a test failure. I think
> > it'd be nice to add this to rspec-mocks itself. A few additional
> > thoughts about this potential feature:
> > * This would only apply when you're mocking/stubbing concrete objects;
> > on a pure mock or stub it wouldn't do the check.
> > * Should this print a warning or raise an error so the test fails?
> > * Should it be configurable? I could see some people not wanting this
> > feature, particularly if you're strictly following the outside-in BDD
> > process where the specs on the outer layers (say, a controller in a
> > rails app) mock methods that have not yet been defined on the inner
> > layers (say, a model in a rails app).
> > * This feature could potentially take things a step further and when
> > you specify mock arguments using `with`, it could check the arity of
> > the method and be sure that the method accepts that number of
> > arguments.
> > What do people think about this idea?
> > Myron
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> What defines a "concrete object"?
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Anything that is not an RSpec stub object?
More information about the rspec-users