Add meck:received/3 API for easier history checking #23
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The purpose of meck:receive/3 is to provide those writing tests to write
cleaner unit test code such that they can easily declare what calls should
have been received on a module with arguments like so:
mymod_test_test() ->
ok = meck:new(mymod),
ok = meck:expect(mymod, test, 0, ok),
%% call some public API
?assertEquals(true, meck:received(mymod, test, [])),
?assert(meck:validate(mymod)).
This way the unit tester does not need to know the format of history/1 entries.
This is similar to basic mock received expectations seen in Ruby libraries
like RSpec mocks/stubs, e.g.:
myclass.should_receive(:method1).with(Arg1, Arg2)
This is only the tip of the iceberg as to what writing cleaner received
expectations for unit testing code, especially when compared to RSpec's API.
|
This is an idea I've been toying with as well for some time. Just never got the time to sit down and flesh it out. Put some comments on your check-in, ready to pull when you've updated the code. Great work on the code and tests! |
Changes suggested by eproxus on GitHub for merging into canonical meck repository that are made in this commit are: * Fix EDoc spec typo: s/Arity::int()/Args::list(term())/ * Repalce use of deprecated bool() to boolean() in EDoc spec * Replace use of deprecated bool() to boolean() in spec annotation * Update @doc summary text to eproxus' suggestion for clarity * Rename received function name to called * Rename has_call_info function name to has_been_called * Placed meck:history(Mod) call inline of has_been_called call
|
I think I added all the changes. There is now a second commit in this pull request. Let me know if I missed anything. |
This commit includes: * Renaming of private function name from has_been_called to has_call with same arguments. This is in reference to the GitHub pull request (eproxus#23) commit comment by @eproxus.
|
I've merged into master now. Thanks for the contribution! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Instead of the unit tester needing to parse the meck:history/1 output for a module and pattern matching for successful or exceptional calls for an {M, F, A} triple inside the test code, the addition of meck:received/3 function makes it easier to read the received calls expectations.
An example might be if you have a CRUD/REST API wrapper around a low-level datastore library, where you want to make sure that on an edit will first read the object/record about to be edited to first check for conflicts (assume you use a read-conflict datastore like CouchDb, Riak, etc.) the unit tester wants to know that the lowleveldb module received a call to read with specific arguments when calling the nicehighlevelapi:edit/1 function:
Eventually I would like to add more ways to do this via the received/3 or received/Other when Other =/= 3 function(s) to offer APIs equivalent to what I am used to using Ruby's RSpec.
I can also add this as a wrapper library around Meck, if you disagree with this the concept of adding this to meck. Thoughts and suggestions are welcome.