On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Peter Jaros <peter.a.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Going forward, what do people think about being able to say
>
> mock.should_receive(:debug).with_block { |log_block|
> # execute log_block, and check its return value
> }
>
> Thoughts?
I like the idea, but I don't know how well it will play with other
sorts of expectations. We'd probably need to alias it with and_block
so you could say:
mock.should_receive(:message).with(:these, "args").and_block {|block| .... }
Would you please file a feature request for this?
Thanks,
David
>
> Peter
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Mark Wilden <m...@mwilden.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Yun Huang Yong <y...@nomitor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> i.e. something like:
>>> log_mock.should_receive(:debug) { |log_block|
>>> # execute log_block, and check its return value
>>> }
>>
>> I suppose you could always look at the source code for the debug
>> method, find out what it does with the result of the block and set an
>> expectation on that behavior.
>>
>> ///ark
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
