Skip to content
Browse files

Remove TODO list from repository.

We only need this locally.
  • Loading branch information...
1 parent 2f91b2f commit 8e0751c4dfb6d3cb6911e7080b8abdb4a252ab09 @floehopper committed
Showing with 1 addition and 57 deletions.
  1. +1 −0 .gitignore
  2. +0 −57 TODO
View
1 .gitignore
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+TODO
Gemfile*.lock
pkg
templates
View
57 TODO
@@ -1,57 +0,0 @@
-- performance tests run markedly slower in ruby 1.9.2 - needs investigation
-- method dispatch in jmock changed from version 1 to 2 - see http://www.jmock.org/jmock1-dispatch.html to http://www.jmock.org/dispatch.html - notably the order in which the matching happens is reversed - mocha currently resembles jmock 1.
-- rake should not be a non-development dependency in gemspec
-- possibly move version constant into separate file and/or use version bumper gem?
-- figure out how different versions of minitest fit in with different versions of ruby 1.9 and make sure integration works for each
-- unstub should use the same code in ClassMethod/InstanceMethod/etc classes e.g. remove_new_method, restore_original_method, etc
-
-=> Patch [#15235] Provide a pseudo-call syntax for simplifying set-up of expectations and stubs
-=> Patch [#10412] Merge 'with' and the expected method
-=> Bug [#8687] Block's return value is dropped on stubbed yielding methods
-
-=> interesting links
-- http://www.jmock.org/match-object-or-method.html
-- http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645-rspec/tickets/106-12985-with_block_which_returns-val
-
-- think about making class_method_test & any_instance_method_test more blackbox to avoid ruby warnings
-
-=> update vendor libraries
-- does updating meta_project have any effect on broken tarball issue?
-
-=> release management
-- why does gem rdoc include all source files? what about other package types?
-- why does zip include Rakefile? what about other package types?
-- tag releases in repos
-- trac?
-
-=> multiple expectations for same method
-- fail fast if expectation count exceeded during test...? c.f. JMock?
-
-=> reduce footprint of mocha in terms of visible methods
-- do away with __is_a__ method if possible - Proc param may no longer be needed
-- add similar test to test_should_be_able_to_mock_standard_object_methods for partial mocks - rename non-public method with underscores e.g. mocha, reset_mocha, stubba_method, stubba_object, etc.
-- reduce number of methods added to Object, Class etc to bare minimum
-- reduce number of methods excluded from undef in Mock (maybe use BlankSlate as mocha parent class to allow mocking of standard object methods?)
-- perhaps only add methods to particular class at point where expects or stubs gets called
-- provide some means to un-stubba an object - ideally should restore any methods with same names as stubba methods c.f. dealing with expectations for methods called :expects, :stubs, etc.
-- use Object#inspect(:mocha) or Object#__inspect__ instead of Object#mocha_inspect?
-
-=> improve design
-- use builder object c.f. JMock
-- use expectation builder object to allow partial mocks to accept a hash in expects or stubs methods
-- possibly simplify by making mock the same as a partial mock of Object
-- provide test::unit agnostic api - mockery/context type objects on which the user must call setup/teardown?
-- allow stubs/expects methods to accept method names as strings and symbols to retain similarity to define_method() et al
-
-=> naming
-- default mock names to mock1, mock2, etc or something similar
-- stubba mocks should named according to parent stubbee
-
-=> improve tests
-- use real activerecord as svn external to for testing instead of active_record_test_case
-- test for setting expectations on class methods (and instance methods?) from within TestCase#setup
-
-=> possible extra functionality
-- maybe allow unstubbing of a specific method from within a test...?
-- oomatron type ideas
-- should all instances share expectations for any_instance or should each instance have their own - in which case how do we provide access to the instances

0 comments on commit 8e0751c

Please sign in to comment.
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.