On Apr 12, 2010, at 2:38 PM, Michael Guterl wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:16 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Apr 12, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Michael Guterl wrote: >> >>> I'm curious what the current state of test spies in rspec is? >>> >>> What is everyone using for this? not a mock? rr? rspec-spies? >>> I see that spies were going to be added to rspec 1.3.0, but pulled >>> because of a bug >>> (https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/938), will this >>> be brought back in? I really like the rspec standard mock / stub >>> syntax and am hesitant to move to another solution. >> >> Not-a-mock works. Any reason not to just use that? >> > > Mostly because I like the default rspec stub / mock syntax. Adding > not-a-mock replaces the entire mock framework: > > config.mock_with NotAMock::RspecMockFrameworkAdapter > > doing so causes all of my existing specs to break. It seemed like the > built-in rspec solution did not require changing all of my existing > mocks/stubs.
Sounds like not-a-mock is broken then, which is no surprise since rspec's mocks don't really offer any extension APIs. It must have broken after internal changes in rspec-mocks. Per the lighthouse ticket, the addition of have_received raised new questions about sync'ing the should_receive and have_received APIs. I think that a fair sum of refactoring would be required to do this properly. This is very low on a very long list of priorities right now, so my recommendation is to fix not-a-mock to work with the latest rspec. HTH, David _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
