有没有比 Rspec 的 `should_receive` 更具侵入性的替代方案? [英] Is there a less intrusive alternative to Rspec's `should_receive`?

问题描述

在编写 Rspec 测试时，我经常对 should_receive 感到沮丧.我想知道是否有其他侵入性较小的替代方案.

In writing Rspec tests, I'm often frustrated with should_receive. I'd like to know if there's a less intrusive alternative.

例如:

describe "making a cake" do
  it "should use some other methods" do
    @baker.should_receive(:make_batter)
    @baker.make_cake
  end
end

对 should_receive 的调用是一个很好的描述，但它破坏了我的代码，因为 should_receive 通过屏蔽原始方法来工作，而 make_cake除非 make_batter 实际返回一些面糊，否则无法继续.所以我把它改成这样:

The call to should_receive is a good description, but it breaks my code, because should_receive works by masking the original method, and make_cake can't proceed unless make_batter actually returns some batter. So I change it to this:

@baker.should_receive(:make_batter).and_return(@batter)

这很丑，因为:

• 看起来我正在测试 make_batter 是否正确返回 @batter，但我实际上强制 make_batter 的假版本返回那个.
• 它迫使我单独设置@batter
• 如果 make_batter 有任何重要的副作用(我想这可能是代码异味)，我也必须让它们发生.

• It looks like I'm testing that make_batter correctly returns @batter, but I'm actually forcing the fake version of make_batter to return that.
• It forces me to separately set up @batter
• If make_batter has any important side effects (which could be a code smell, I suppose) I have to make those happen, too.

我希望 should_receive(:make_batter) 能够验证方法调用并将其传递给原始方法.如果我想对它的行为进行存根以进行更好的隔离测试，我会明确地这样做:@baker.stub(:make_batter).and_return(@batter).

I wish that should_receive(:make_batter) would verify the method call and pass it on to the original method. If I wanted to stub its behavior for better isolation testing, I would do so explicitly: @baker.stub(:make_batter).and_return(@batter).

有没有办法在不阻止原始方法调用的情况下执行类似 should_receive 的操作?我的问题是糟糕设计的征兆吗?

Is there a way to do something like should_receive without preventing the original method call? Is my problem a symptom of bad design?

推荐答案

看起来更好的 API 委托给 Myron Marston 提到的原始方法实际上已经添加到 rspec-mocks v2.12.0

It looks like the nicer API to delegate to the original method that Myron Marston alluded to has actually been added in rspec-mocks v2.12.0

• 添加委托给原始方法的and_call_original.

所以现在您可以在想要设置消息期望而不干扰对象如何响应消息"的任何时候简单地执行此操作:

So now you can simply do this any time you "want to set a message expecation without interfering with how the object responds to the message":

@baker.should_receive(:make_batter).and_call_original

感谢您添加此内容，迈伦.

Thanks for adding this, Myron.

这篇关于有没有比 Rspec 的 `should_receive` 更具侵入性的替代方案?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！