Avoid and_return with RSpec mocks

[jessieay]

With RSpec mocks, the following:

receiver.stub(:message).and_return(:return_value)

is equivalent to:

receiver.stub(message: :return_value)

I prefer the second. Any objections/ideas?

[jessieay]

cc @gylaz who first pointed this out to me

[mcmire]

I like to think one reason we use rspec-mocks is for its readability. and_return is certainly more to type, but it's more readable.

[gabebw]

I prefer the second as well.

However, if we switch to #175, I think we'll have to use and_return, since I don't know how to use the second version with expect(thing).to receive(:meth) syntax.

[gabebw]

Apparently you can do this:

allow(user).to receive_messages(title: 'Developer', name: 'Greg')

I vote for that if #175 is merged.

[mcmire]

Ooh, I quite like that.

[jferris]

@jessieay want to reopen this in pull request form?

[gylaz]

Considering stub is deprecated in new versions of RSpec in favor of allow, this is probably somewhat irrelevant.

[jessieay]

@jferris @gylaz I think Joe was referring to allow(user).to receive_messages(title: 'Developer', name: 'Greg') as a style guideline for stubbing multiple methods. I like that and will open a PR for it shortly :)