-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
Contract tests with stubbed methods of real objects #56
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
It's not possible at the moment unfortunately. I think it's a reasonable feature to have - we would like to support many different coding styles if possible. However, I'd prefer this type of syntax: stub(user, as: :author).friend? { true }
stub(user, as: :commenter).logged_in? { true }
# in user_spec.rb
verify_contract(:author)
verify_contract(:commenter) This would make it easier for a class to play multiple roles, and naming those roles accordingly. Perhaps we could also add a default value to this option - derived from the name of the objects class. What do you think about doing it this way? |
@psyho - thanks for the quick response! Your syntax is much better than mine. However, I would avoid default value derived from class name, because this could make it unclear why contract verification is triggered. For example: stub(user).friend? { true } # no hint that it triggers contract verification
# in user_spec.rb
verify_contract(:user) |
You're right - tracking down the missing interactions would be more confusing and difficult if we made it the default behavior. It would also be a breaking change instead of an improvement. This doesn't look too hard to implement - I should be able to add it in the next release. |
So, I'm waiting for your implementation. If you want some help - just let me know and I will hack a bit and try to make a pull request. |
Using bogus I can stub a method on real object:
And this works great! However, I would like to use contract tests in such a case. I went through the whole documentation and couldn't find any related example.
Ideally it should work like:
Can you show me how to achieve this if it's possible? Or if it's not possible - does it sound like a reasonable feature request?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: