comp.lang.ruby

J. B. Rainsberger

12/2/2006 2:49:00 AM

James Mead wrote:
> On 28/11/06, J. B. Rainsberger <jbrains762@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Suppose I have an Order, which has_many OrderItems. Suppose I want to
>> write a test that checks that when I ask the Order to do something, it
>> asks its order items to do that something. I tried to do this like so:
>>
>> def test_delegates
>> order_items = []
>> 3.times {
>> item = mock("order item", :do_something => nil)
>> order_items.push(item)
>> }
>>
>> order = Order.new(:order_items => order_items)
>> order.do_something
>> end
>>
>> This works with normal objects, but it seems ActiveRecord objects don't
>> like someone passing them Mocha::Mock objects in their constructors.
>> They check that the order items, in this case, are OrderItem objects.
>>
>> Is there something in ActiveRecord I can override to relax this
>> behavior? I don't like having to create an OrderItem just to add a
>> single stub or expectation.
>>
>
> What we tend to do in this case is stub the collection method itself i.e.
> Order#order_items.
>
> So you could do something like this...
>
> def test_should_do_something_to_all_order_items
> order_items = Array.new(3) { mock('order item', :do_something => nil) }
> order = Order.new
> order.stubs(:order_items).returns(order_items)
>
> order.do_something
> end
>
> When I have a spare couple of hours I'll be releasing a new version of
> Mocha
> that supports mocking of the is_a?. This will allow you to make this work
> with ActiveRecord, but with the disadvantage that you are coupling your
> test
> to the innards of ActiveRecord.
>
> I hope that helps.

That's not bad. I think I'd rather stub the collection than sorry about
is_a?. I'll give this a shot and let you know how it goes.

Thank you, James.
--
J. B. (Joe) Rainsberger :: http://www....
Your guide to software craftsmanship
JUnit Recipes: Practical Methods for Programmer Testing
2005 Gordon Pask Award for contribution Agile Software Practice