Thank random convergence for this thread!*Spec. The. API.* <pokes self in eye to reinforce point.> Man, that's untangled alot of what I was trying to do!
2009/1/23 Ashley Moran <[email protected]> > > > On 23 Jan 2009, at 09:03, Francis Fish wrote: > > > Forgot to mention - you can easily end up writing the code in twice > > (as in once as a set of expectations and the second time for real) > > if you do this, stubbing out the internals of a method. It gets a) > > brittle and b) old very quickly and needs to be done only when you > > really need it. > > What Francis is saying is right - and the reason it would happen here > is by modifying the internal API. If you're specifying the behaviour > of @thing, and also setting stubs or should_receive expectations, > you're modifying the object you're inspecting. In effect, you're not > seeing the behaviour of an object of class Thing, but an object of > another, similar, class - Thing' say - so you can't actually use those > specs as proof that the class is correct. > > If you get into a situation where you *need* to stub out private > methods, that suggests there's another class lurking in there. > > Ashley > > -- > http://www.patchspace.co.uk/ > http://aviewfromafar.net/ > http://twitter.com/ashleymoran > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NWRUG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nwrug-members?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
