<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">In the particular case of super, another approach, though perhaps not using the spec framework, would be to assert (a la Test::Unit) that your class is a subclass of the intended superclass. To be truly anal, also assert that the superclass has a method with the same name as the subclass's method of interest and that the subclass has that method, too. But all this seems deeply into the xUnit world, and far from the BDD way.<br><br>Al<div><div style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><br><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">----- Original Message ----<br>From: John D. Hume <duelin.markers@gmail.com><br>To: rspec-users <rspec-users@rubyforge.org><br>Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2008 7:49:11 AM<br>Subject: Re:
[rspec-users] spec'ing calls to super (or other Ruby keywords)<br><br>
I believe calls to super are sufficiently internal to the Ruby interpreter that a mocking framework can't intercept them without doing separate implementations for separate Ruby interpreters (and likely even separate versions). I could be wrong, but even so I'd recommend a different approach.<br>
<br>If your need is really as simple as your example, what you have is just a method that has to get two things done: the base save and one additional call. You can write one (or more) example for each of those two things without your spec knowing that one of those things gets done by calling super. (You might object that by spec'ing the base #save behavior you're spec'ing the framework. I'd say you're USING the framework to spec something your code does. To be clear, I'm not suggesting you spec every detail of what save does: just something to make sure the record actually lands in the db.)<br>
<br>(Sidebar: Keep in mind the return value if you're really overriding #save like that.)<br><br>If you're dead set on spec'ing that the super method gets called, there are a couple of hideous ways of doing it that will leak out of your example. Namely, you can (in your spec) redefine the method in the superclass and verify it gets called or (also in your spec, and this one's a little less leaky) have the class under test include a module that defines the same method and verify it gets called. Don't do either of those though (unless it's just to prove to yourself that they're possible).<br>
<br>-hume.<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Matt McNeil <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:nabble.108@xoxy.net" target="_blank" href="mailto:nabble.108@xoxy.net">nabble.108@xoxy.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Hi there,<br>
<br>
How does one spec an invocation of a Ruby keyword, such as super in this<br>
case?<br>
<br>
class User < ActiveResource::Base<br>
# faking the ActiveRecord before/after_save observers<br>
def save<br>
super<br>
UserMailer.deliver_activation(self) if recently_activated?<br>
end<br>
end<br>
<br>
Does the solution look anything like the following?<br>
<br>
describe User do<br>
describe '#save' do<br>
it "should call save on the parent class" do<br>
# something.should_receive(:something)<br>
@user.save<br>
end<br>
end<br>
end<br>
<br>
Any thoughts?<br>
<br>
Thanks much,<br>
Matt</blockquote></div></div></div></div></div><br>
<hr size=1>Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ "> Try it now.</a></body></html>