On Aug 22, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Lenny Marks wrote:
>
> On Aug 22, 2012, at 10:36 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, J. B. Rainsberger wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:07 AM, David Chelimsky
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:52 AM, J. B. Rainsberge
On Aug 22, 2012, at 10:36 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, J. B. Rainsberger wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:07 AM, David Chelimsky
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:52 AM, J. B. Rainsberger wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Bas Vodde w
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:36 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, J. B. Rainsberger wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:07 AM, David Chelimsky
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:52 AM, J. B. Rainsberger
> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Ba
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM, J. B. Rainsberger wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:07 AM, David Chelimsky
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:52 AM, J. B. Rainsberger wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Bas Vodde wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> JB is right.
>> >>
>> >> Sometimes, fo
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:07 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:52 AM, J. B. Rainsberger wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Bas Vodde wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> JB is right.
> >>
> >> Sometimes, for clarity, it is useful to add should_not, but for
> >> functionality it
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:52 AM, J. B. Rainsberger wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Bas Vodde wrote:
>>
>>
>> JB is right.
>>
>> Sometimes, for clarity, it is useful to add should_not, but for
>> functionality it is usually not needed.
>
>
> I know JMock has never() for this people. Sho
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Bas Vodde wrote:
>
> JB is right.
>
> Sometimes, for clarity, it is useful to add should_not, but for
> functionality it is usually not needed.
>
I know JMock has never() for this people. Should RSpec-mocks have something
like object.should_receive(:nothing).
--
JB is right.
Sometimes, for clarity, it is useful to add should_not, but for functionality
it is usually not needed.
Bas
On 22 Aug, 2012, at 4:12 AM, J. B. Rainsberger wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Andrew Premdas wrote:
> I want to write
>
> it "should ..." do
> Client.shoul
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Andrew Premdas wrote:
> I want to write
>
> it "should ..." do
> Client.should_not_receive(any_message)
> # do something here that might do Client.xxx
> end
>
I might be wrong, but if you use a mock object and set no expectations on
it, it will expect no mess