On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:39:57 -0700, Markus Roberts wrote: > > I'm currrently looking at the specs for the ssh_authorized_key provider. > >> There are two tests that give me a headache: > >> > >> it "should create the directory if it doesn't exist" do > >> File.stubs(:exist?).with(@dir).returns false > >> Dir.expects(:mkdir).with(@dir,0700) > >> @provider.flush > >> end > >> > >> it "should not create or chown the directory if it already exist" do > >> File.stubs(:exist?).with(@dir).returns false > >> Dir.expects(:mkdir).never > >> @provider.flush > >> end > >> > >> Both tests stub exist? to return false (which is obviously wrong in the > >> second case) but both tests are expecting different results. Nevertheless > >> both tests will pass. Am I overlooking something? How can this happen? > >> > > > > Wow. I'll deffer to Luke on the "what to do about it" issue but apart from > > that this look like another rspec bug (along the lines of the > > be_any/all/none... bug, http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/197643) but I'm > > not seeing the mechanism off the top of my head. > > > > It's probably worth figuring out if only to identify other tests that might > > not be doing what they look like, > > > > It looks like 1) the tests are stubbing Dir.mkdir and 2) expects are > silently ignored on stubs so 3) the problematic lines simply aren't doing > what they look like. >
If Dir.mkdir is being stubbed, then this is almost certainly the problem. I ran into this scenario recently, which was the entire reason for removing the stubbing of save_last_run_summary in http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/4339#note-20 Expecting a stubbed method never wasn't working, however expecting a stubbed method >= once behaved as expected. Definitely an rspec bug. -- Jacob Helwig
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
