Re: Unit Test of method calling system() - how?

> AFAICS this will always raise, since $? will never be nil. I think you 
> want:
> 
>     raise ... unless $?.success?

Aaah, nice trick. I did notice that this always was raising, but I was 
postponing forensics until RTFM :o)

So with a change of code (http://pastie.org/956910), including an 
explicit file check, I now have this working:

  test "Options.parse with empty argv and missing wiki file raises" do
    opt_parser = Options.new
    assert_raise() { opt_parser.parse([], "foo") }
  end

> Well, that's what mocking is for. You say you don't actually want to run 
> print_usage_and_exit, so I think you want to check that it *would* have 
> been run, with the correct arguments to do what you want.
> 
>   opt_parser = Options.new
>   opt_parser.expects(:print_usage_and_exit).with()
>   assert_nothing_raised { opt_parser.parse([], "/foo/bar.rb") }

Right, so this appears to be working nicely:

  test "Options.parse with empty argv and existing wiki file don't 
raise" do
    opt_parser = Options.new
    opt_parser.expects(:print_usage_and_exit).with()
    assert_nothing_raised { opt_parser.parse([], SCRIPT_PATH) }
  end

> At the end of your test method, if :print_usage_and_exit wasn't called, 
> or was called with different arguments, you'll get an error raised by 
> the mocking framework. The awkward thing is that print_usage_and_exit 
> might actually be called multiple times, so it may be worth changing the 
> call to
> 
>   if print_usage_full?
>     print_usage_and_exit(true)
>     return  # not reached except in testing
>   end

This I don't understand. How can the method be called multiple times, 
and how can that be fixed by introducing a return? I do get this funky 
error:

"- expected exactly once, already invoked once: 
#<Options:0x100958ef8>.print_usage_and_exit(:full)"

from this (the case where print_usage_and_exit should be invoked with an 
arg):

   test "Options.parse with --help in argv and existing wiki output long 
usage" do
     opt_parser = Options.new
     opt_parser.expects(:print_usage_and_exit).with(:full)
     assert( "<exp>" == opt_parser.parse(["--help"],SCRIPT_PATH) )
   end

and I don't know what to assert.


> As for $0: this tends to be dangerous anyway (it is subject to 
> truncation under various conditions). __FILE__ is safer, giving the 
> location of the current source file, if that's usable.

Yup, $0 is now gone.



Cheers,


Martin
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.