cool, thanks
2008/9/13 Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 13 Sep 2008, at 13:42, Joaquin Rivera Padron wrote:
>
> hi,
> this did the trick:
>
> class Shell
> def self.sh command
> %{ command }
> end
> end
>
> then I am able to:
>
> it "should be mock alright" do
> Shell.should_receive(...).with(...)
> end
>
> is that correct so?
>
>
> You've definitely got the idea, and that will work nicely for the examples
> you've given.
>
> You might find that the code will reveal its intent a little better, and
> result in more readable specs if you think about exactly what role you want
> the shell to play for you in this particular instance, and create your
> shell-wrapping object with the specific methods that role needs to provide
> rather than a one-size-fits-all method as you have done here.
>
> So, for example, if I want to be able to get and commit files from a source
> control repository, I can create a class like
>
> class GitSourceControl
> def checkout(file)
> %x{ git checkout #{file} }
> end
> end
>
> This gives me a couple of advantages:
>
> Firstly, my spec for the object which depends on the shell commands, looks
> like this:
>
> it "should checkout the file" do
>
> filename = "blah"
> GitSourceControl.should_receive(:checkout).with(filename)
> # ... exercise the object under test...
>
> Which is very readable and clear.
>
> Secondly, if I ever want to change the type of source control I'm using, I
> can just write another class that implements the same interface - and swap
> out GitSourceControl for, SubversionSourceControl, say.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
>
> sorry aboout latter one (gotta do something about that hotkeys sendind my
> mails all of a sudden)
>
> thanks guys
> joaquin
>
> 2008/9/13 Joaquin Rivera Padron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> hi,
>> this did the trick:
>>
>> class Shell
>> def self.sh command
>> %{ command }
>> end
>> end
>>
>> then I am able to:
>>
>> it "should be mock alright" do
>>
>> end
>>
>> 2008/9/13 Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 12, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Matt Wynne wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12 Sep 2008, at 14:12, Joaquin Rivera Padron wrote:
>>>>
>>>> what is the best (or any) way of mocking the running of shell commands?
>>>>>
>>>>> e.g.
>>>>> code like the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> def method
>>>>> %{ ls }
>>>>> end
>>>>>
>>>>> spec:
>>>>>
>>>>> it "should list the directory contents"
>>>>> shell = mock(Object) # %{} lives in Kernel module and its sugar for `
>>>>> shell.should_receive(:`).with(:ls)
>>>>> end
>>>>>
>>>>> sorry about latter one, thanks in advance
>>>>> joaquin
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I suggest you put a 'seam' between your code and the call the Kernel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That sounds like a good idea. You can also Kernel#` directly (instead of
>>> `foo` call Kernel.send(:`, "foo"). This allows you to stub out Kernel#`.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-users@rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
>
> cheers,
> Matt
> ----
> http://blog.mattwynne.net
> http://songkick.com
>
> In case you wondered: The opinions expressed in this email are my own and
> do not necessarily reflect the views of any former, current or future
> employers of mine.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
