On Jul 13, 2008, at 5:03 pm, Sven Fuchs wrote:
Hey Ashley!
How's things? :)
Good thanks, just sadly not spent much time using RSpec lately...
Spam me off list if you want to catch up!
Wow, yes.
This also uses the block passed to should_receive, but in a nicer
way than my inital attemp which is a bit chatty.
It'd look a bit odd when I want to specify the order for a bunch of
methods, but actually I don't need to do that here.
Again, this really should be documented. I even started digging into
the RSpec source, but obviously lacked the creativity for this :)
I remember posting about this a long time ago. I think it was Aslak
that replied. I'd prefer a neater syntax for ordered expectations
across mocks. Not too long ago I was working on my database migration
tool that has to turn a graph of migrations into a linear sequence
before it can apply them, and obviously the order is essential. But
the specs look something like...
migration_1.should_receive(:apply) do
migration_2.should_receive(:apply) do
migration_3.should_receive(:apply) do
migration_4.should_receive(:apply) do
...
which is a bit hideous.
I'd prefer something like
migration_1.should_receive(:apply)
migration_2.should_receive(:apply).after(migration_2.receives(:apply))
...
but I guess that would complicate the implementation.
As it's a relatively uncommon thing I think probably just documenting
it is ok for now.
Ashley
--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://aviewfromafar.net/
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
