On 10 Apr 2008, at 22:28, David Chelimsky wrote:
> Not sure what you mean here - that is handled transparently by
> stub_model so you don't have to make any such distinction. Take a look
> at
> http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec-rails/tree/master/lib/spec/rails/example/rails_example_group.rb
> and see if it sheds some light.
So it does - the code in the previous post was this, however:
stub_model(Person, :attrs => {:last_name => 'Name'},
:stubs => {:full_name => 'Full Name'})
Where did :attrs and :stubs go? (or come from?)
>> I have to say, though, I don't see
>> the advantage of using a real object as the basis for the mock as
>> long
>> as one is used as a sanity check for the stubs (maybe I am missing a
>> benefit).
>
> Not sure what you mean here either. Can you elaborate?
Just that you have the line
model_class.new do |model|
Where I did
mock_model(model_class)
then later when stubbing did something like
stubs.each { |msg, ret|
... raise unless model_class.new.respond_to?(msg) }
This gives you the advantage of checking the stubs against a real
model but on a "pure" mock. I just wasn't sure what the advantage of
using a partial mock was, in this case.
As for the comment:
> #--
> # TODO - Shouldn't this just be an extension of stub! ??
> # - object.stub!(:method => return_value, :method2 =>
> return_value2, :etc => etc)
> #++
+1 on that too. I've wanted that for so long :D
Ashley
--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://aviewfromafar.net/
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
