matt.spendlove at gmail.com
Tue May 8 14:43:29 UTC 2012
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 9:15:56 PM UTC, Justin Ko wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Matt Wynne wrote:
> 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
> 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
> Author, http://pragprog.com/book/hwcuc/the-cucumber-book
> Founder, http://www.relishapp.com/
> Twitter, https://twitter.com/mattwynne
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> Now that I think about it, the only time I use stub_chain is in Rails
> controllers, for scopes (which is also pretty rare). I'm 100% for
> extracting stub_chain into a gem, along with any_instance. We could call it
> "rspec-mocks-extensions" :)
Came to this thread as I'm curious about how folk test data collection in
their controllers. I feel I just want to just test message expectations as
simple controllers are pretty dumb right? I certainly don't wanna implement
my own query interface (wrapping all scopes in methods) to enable setting
message expectations and it seems we can stub (scope) chains but not set
expectations. Just doesn't quite feel right all of this..
Are you all really doing the kinda thing Justin suggests at the start of
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rspec-users