Comments on: Comparing Ruby Mock Object Libraries http://www.pathf.com/blogs/2009/05/comparing-ruby-mock-object-libraries/ Running commentary about agile development, user experience design and Ajax. Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:33:43 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Craig Buchek http://www.pathf.com/blogs/2009/05/comparing-ruby-mock-object-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-6552 Craig Buchek Fri, 29 May 2009 21:04:33 +0000 http://www.pathf.com/blogs/?p=2557#comment-6552 What I like about RR is that I can set the mock expectations AFTER running the test code: subject = Object.new stub(subject).foo subject.foo(1) subject.should have_received.foo(1) Almost every other mocking system makes you set the expectation before the test runs, which is backwards from all the other (non-mock) expectations/asserts. And since you have to set them before running the test, you have to either include them in the setup for every test, or include a lot of duplication in each test. Definitely a big win for RR. What I like about RR is that I can set the mock expectations AFTER running the test code:

subject = Object.new
stub(subject).foo
subject.foo(1)
subject.should have_received.foo(1)

Almost every other mocking system makes you set the expectation before the test runs, which is backwards from all the other (non-mock) expectations/asserts. And since you have to set them before running the test, you have to either include them in the setup for every test, or include a lot of duplication in each test. Definitely a big win for RR.

]]>