matt at mattwynne.net
Wed Feb 22 16:00:16 UTC 2012
On 22 Feb 2012, at 15:41, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Mike Pack <mikepackdev at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yup, I find myself doing this all the time. I think it should be considered
>> that too deep of a stub chain could be a sign of poor
>> abstraction/information hiding. Could lead to bad practices? On the
>> flipside, this would be super helpful when dealing with Railsy stubs because
>> of long scope chains (but IMO long scope chains should be enclosed in a
>> Also, why not rspec core?
> First - it would be rspec-mocks, not rspec-core.
> Second - in all but the rarest cases (mostly fluent interfaces), it
> exacerbates highly coupled designs by making them seemingly easier to
> test (but in the long run they just add to the problems associated w/
> coupling). This is already true of stub_chain, which I already regret
> including in rspec-mocks for these reasons. If @justinko introduces a
> separate gem for should_receive_chain, I'd probably want to move
> stub_chain to that gem as well.
> Note that I'm not saying that every use of stub_chain is incorrect, or
> un-pragmatic. I just think that if there's another way to get at that
> feature, rspec-mocks is better off without it.
^ Yep, what he said ^
Freelance programmer & coach
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rspec-users