Zach Dennis wrote:
> +1 to composition over inheritance here. Mocking at different layers
> of an inheritance hierarchy sounds like trouble and screams to pull
> that thing apart.
Good point! I've already tried the composition approach. It solves the
testabilitiy problems, but it doesn't feel right in this case.
Inheritance seems to be the more natural approach. The C++ application
will call virtual methods on the base class which should be overriden in a
derived class. So it seems to make sense to have the same inheritance tree
in the Ruby counter parts.
If I would use composition, I would at least need to dynamically extend
the referenced base class so I can override some of the methods that are
the counter parts of the virtual C++ methods. And I would need to expose
the referenced class to the C++ code.
I've finally found a way to kinda mock the base class in some way:
module BaseClassMock
attr_accessor :base
def self.included(klass)
class << klass
@@base_class = Object.new
def base_class
return @@base_class
end
end
end
def initialize(*args)
@@base_class.new(*args) if @@base_class.respond_to?(:new)
@base = Object.new
end
def method_missing(symbol, *args)
@base.send(symbol, *args)
end
end
Any base class (Swig classes in my case) should then be declared for RSpec
like:
module Swig
class Base; include BaseClassMock; end
end
And in the specs I can then do:
Derived.base_class.should_receive(:new).with('something')
d = Derived.new('something')
or:
d = Derived.new
d.base.should_receive(:do_something)
d.do_something
Tobias
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
