[rspec-users] How do I specify that a class does not receive any message
lenny at aps.org
Wed Aug 22 17:38:34 UTC 2012
On Aug 22, 2012, at 10:36 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, J. B. Rainsberger <me at jbrains.ca> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:07 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:52 AM, J. B. Rainsberger <me at jbrains.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Bas Vodde <basv at odd-e.com> wrote:
>>>>> JB is right.
>>>>> Sometimes, for clarity, it is useful to add should_not, but for
>>>>> functionality it is usually not needed.
>>>> I know JMock has never() for this people. Should RSpec-mocks have
>>>> like object.should_receive(:nothing).
>>> never() is not a catch all for _all_ messages. It is for a specific
>>> message, just like it is in rspec-mocks
>>> # rspec
>> In JMock, you can write this:
>> and this means "never anything". Just like
>> which each equate to mock().as_null_object().
> Perhaps it goes without saying, but I was not aware of that ;)
> As you noted earlier this thread (not quoted above) RSpec::Mocks::Mock
> instances (returned by double(), mock(), or stub()) are strict by
> default - e.g. they'll complain about any unexpected messages.
> Obviously that does not account for any real objects.
> I'm open to adding an API for this, but not
> object.should_receive(:nothing) since that syntax is for declaring
> expected messages.
+1 for me. I've found myself on occasion using should_not_receive(:some_message). OK, see a failing spec, make it pass, but what about when the collaborator method is renamed. All those should_not_receive expectations will still pass no matter what. It would be great to have object.should_receive(:nothing) instead. This would make life easier when collaborators are stubbed out with :as_null_object stubs.
> Other ideas welcome.
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
More information about the rspec-users