Databases
StackOverflow2013
Postsdbo
POIs there a less intrusive alternative to Rspec's `should_receive`?
 

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. POIs there a less intrusive alternative to Rspec's `should_receive`?
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <p>In writing Rspec tests, I'm often frustrated with <code>should_receive</code>. I'd like to know if there's a less intrusive alternative.</p> <p>For example:</p> <pre><code>describe "making a cake" do it "should use some other methods" do @baker.should_receive(:make_batter) @baker.make_cake end end </code></pre> <p>The call to <code>should_receive</code> is a good description, but it breaks my code, because <code>should_receive</code> works by masking the original method, and <code>make_cake</code> can't proceed unless <code>make_batter</code> actually returns some batter. So I change it to this:</p> <pre><code>@baker.should_receive(:make_batter).and_return(@batter) </code></pre> <p>This is ugly because:</p> <ul> <li>It <strong>looks</strong> like I'm testing that <code>make_batter</code> correctly returns <code>@batter</code>, but I'm <strong>actually</strong> forcing the fake version of <code>make_batter</code> to return that.</li> <li>It forces me to separately set up <code>@batter</code></li> <li>If <code>make_batter</code> has any important side effects (which could be a code smell, I suppose) I have to make those happen, too.</li> </ul> <p>I wish that <code>should_receive(:make_batter)</code> would verify the method call and <strong>pass it on to the original method</strong>. If I wanted to stub its behavior for better isolation testing, I would do so explicitly: <code>@baker.stub(:make_batter).and_return(@batter)</code>.</p> <p>Is there a way to do something like <code>should_receive</code> without preventing the original method call? Is my problem a symptom of bad design?</p>
    singulars
    1. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PTQuestion
    1. USNathan Long
    1. USNathan Long
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    2. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    3. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    1. VO
      singulars
      1. POIs there a less intrusive alternative to Rspec's `should_receive`?
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    2. VO
      singulars
      1. POIs there a less intrusive alternative to Rspec's `should_receive`?
      1. USAdam
      1. VTFavorite
    3. VO
      singulars
      1. POIs there a less intrusive alternative to Rspec's `should_receive`?
      1. USMatt McCormick
      1. VTFavorite
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
 

Querying!

 
Guidance
A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload