rspec-core 2.0.0.a1

data/example_specs/passing/stubbing_example.rb

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/spec_helper'
+
+describe "A consumer of a stub" do
+  it "should be able to stub methods on any Object" do
+    obj = Object.new
+    obj.stub!(:foobar).and_return {:return_value}
+    obj.foobar.should equal(:return_value)
+  end
+end
+
+class StubbableClass
+  def self.find id
+    return :original_return
+  end
+end
+
+describe "A stubbed method on a class" do
+  it "should return the stubbed value" do
+    StubbableClass.stub!(:find).and_return(:stub_return)
+    StubbableClass.find(1).should equal(:stub_return)
+  end
+  
+  it "should revert to the original method after each spec" do
+    StubbableClass.find(1).should equal(:original_return)
+  end
+
+  it "can stub! and mock the same message" do
+    StubbableClass.stub!(:msg).and_return(:stub_value)
+    StubbableClass.should_receive(:msg).with(:arg).and_return(:mock_value)
+
+    StubbableClass.msg.should equal(:stub_value)
+    StubbableClass.msg(:other_arg).should equal(:stub_value)
+    StubbableClass.msg(:arg).should equal(:mock_value)
+    StubbableClass.msg(:another_arg).should equal(:stub_value)
+    StubbableClass.msg(:yet_another_arg).should equal(:stub_value)
+    StubbableClass.msg.should equal(:stub_value)
+  end
+end
+
+describe "A mock" do
+  it "can stub!" do
+    mock = mock("stubbing mock")
+    mock.stub!(:msg).and_return(:value)
+    (1..10).each {mock.msg.should equal(:value)}
+  end
+  
+  it "can stub! and mock" do
+    mock = mock("stubbing mock")
+    mock.stub!(:stub_message).and_return(:stub_value)
+    mock.should_receive(:mock_message).once.and_return(:mock_value)
+    (1..10).each {mock.stub_message.should equal(:stub_value)}
+    mock.mock_message.should equal(:mock_value)
+    (1..10).each {mock.stub_message.should equal(:stub_value)}
+  end
+  
+  it "can stub! and mock the same message" do
+    mock = mock("stubbing mock")
+    mock.stub!(:msg).and_return(:stub_value)
+    mock.should_receive(:msg).with(:arg).and_return(:mock_value)
+    mock.msg.should equal(:stub_value)
+    mock.msg(:other_arg).should equal(:stub_value)
+    mock.msg(:arg).should equal(:mock_value)
+    mock.msg(:another_arg).should equal(:stub_value)
+    mock.msg(:yet_another_arg).should equal(:stub_value)
+    mock.msg.should equal(:stub_value)
+  end
+end
+
+    

data/example_specs/passing/yielding_example.rb

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/spec_helper'
+
+class MessageAppender
+  
+  def initialize(appendage)
+    @appendage = appendage
+  end
+  
+  def append_to(message)
+    if_told_to_yield do
+      message << @appendage
+    end
+  end
+    
+end
+
+describe "a message expectation yielding to a block" do
+  it "should yield if told to" do
+    appender = MessageAppender.new("appended to")
+    appender.should_receive(:if_told_to_yield).and_yield
+    message = ""
+    appender.append_to(message)
+    message.should == "appended to"
+  end
+
+  it "should not yield if not told to" do
+    appender = MessageAppender.new("appended to")
+    appender.should_receive(:if_told_to_yield)
+    message = ""
+    appender.append_to(message)
+    message.should == ""
+  end
+end

data/example_specs/ruby1.9.compatibility/access_to_constants_spec.rb

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+# courtesy of Matthias Hennemeyer
+#
+# The following should pass against ruby 1.8 and 1.9. It currently only passes
+# 1.8 (as of 1/2/2009)
+#
+# Once cucumber supports ruby 1.9, this should be moved to cucumber scenarios instead. 
+module Foo 
+  module Bar
+    
+    module ModuleInEnclosingModule;end
+    class ClassInEnclosingModule;end 
+    def method_in_enclosing_module;end
+    CONSTANT_IN_ENCLOSING_MODULE = 0
+
+    describe "Examples trying to access constants defined in an enclosing module" do
+
+      it "can access Modules" do
+        ModuleInEnclosingModule
+      end
+      it "can access Classes" do
+        ClassInEnclosingModule.new
+      end
+      it "can access CONSTANTS" do
+        CONSTANT_IN_ENCLOSING_MODULE
+      end
+      it "can NOT access methods" do
+        lambda {method_in_enclosing_module}.should raise_error(/undefined/)
+      end
+
+      describe "from a nested example group" do
+
+        it "can access Modules" do
+          ModuleInEnclosingModule
+        end
+        it "can access Classes" do
+          ClassInEnclosingModule.new
+        end
+        it "can access CONSTANTS" do
+          CONSTANT_IN_ENCLOSING_MODULE
+        end
+        it "can NOT access methods" do
+          lambda {method_in_enclosing_module}.should raise_error(/undefined/)
+        end
+
+      end 
+
+    end
+    
+    describe "Examples trying to access constants defined in the example group" do
+      
+      module ModuleDefinedInGroup;end
+      class ClassDefinedInGroup; end 
+      def method_defined_in_group; end
+      CONSTANT_DEFINED_IN_GROUP = 0
+
+      it "can access Modules" do
+        ModuleDefinedInGroup
+      end
+      it "can access Classes" do
+        ClassDefinedInGroup.new
+      end
+      it "can access CONSTANTS" do
+        CONSTANT_DEFINED_IN_GROUP
+      end
+      it "can access methods" do
+        method_defined_in_group
+      end
+      
+      describe "that live inside a nested group" do
+        it "can access Modules" do
+          ModuleDefinedInGroup
+        end
+        it "can access Classes" do
+          ClassDefinedInGroup.new
+        end
+        it "can access CONSTANTS" do
+          CONSTANT_DEFINED_IN_GROUP
+        end
+        it "can access methods" do
+          method_defined_in_group
+        end
+      end
+    end 
+  end 
+end

data/features-pending/command_line/line_number_option.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+Feature: Spec and test together
+
+  As an RSpec user
+  I want to run one example identified by the line number
+  
+  Background:
+    Given a file named "example.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe "a group" do
+
+        it "has a first example" do
+
+        end
+        
+        it "has a second example" do
+
+        end
+        
+      end
+      """
+
+  Scenario: two examples - first example on declaration line
+    When I run "spec example.rb:3 --format nested"
+    Then the stdout should match "1 example, 0 failures"
+    And the stdout should match "has a first example"
+    But the stdout should not match "has a second example"
+
+  Scenario: two examples - first example from line inside declaration
+    When I run "spec example.rb:4 --format nested"
+    Then the stdout should match "1 example, 0 failures"
+    And the stdout should match "has a first example"
+    But the stdout should not match "has a second example"
+
+  Scenario: two examples - first example from line below declaration
+    When I run "spec example.rb:6 --format nested"
+    Then the stdout should match "1 example, 0 failures"
+    And the stdout should match "has a first example"
+    But the stdout should not match "has a second example"
+
+  Scenario: two examples - second example from line below declaration
+    When I run "spec example.rb:7 --format nested"
+    Then the stdout should match "1 example, 0 failures"
+    And the stdout should match "has a second example"
+    But the stdout should not match "has a first example"
+
+  Scenario: two examples - both examples from the group declaration
+    When I run "spec example.rb:1 --format nested"
+    Then the stdout should match "2 examples, 0 failures"
+    And the stdout should match "has a second example"
+    And the stdout should match "has a first example"
+
+  Scenario: two examples - both examples from above the first example declaration
+    When I run "spec example.rb:2 --format nested"
+    Then the stdout should match "2 examples, 0 failures"
+    And the stdout should match "has a second example"
+    And the stdout should match "has a first example"

data/features-pending/command_line/line_number_option_with_example_with_no_name.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+Feature: Spec and test together
+
+  As an RSpec user
+  I want to run one example identified by the line number
+  
+  Background:
+    Given a file named "example.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe 9 do
+
+        it { should be > 8 }
+
+        it { should be < 10 }
+        
+      end
+      """
+
+  Scenario: two examples - first example on declaration line
+    When I run "spec example.rb:3 --format nested"
+    Then the stdout should match "1 example, 0 failures"
+    Then the stdout should match "should be > 8"
+    But the stdout should not match "should be < 10"

data/features-pending/example_groups/example_group_with_should_methods.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+Feature: Spec::ExampleGroup with should methods
+
+  As an RSpec adopter accustomed to classes and methods
+  I want to use should_* methods in an ExampleGroup
+  So that I use RSpec with classes and methods that look more like RSpec examples
+
+  Scenario Outline: Example Group class with should methods
+    Given a file named "example_group_with_should_methods.rb" with:
+    """
+    require 'rspec/autorun'
+
+    class MySpec < Spec::ExampleGroup
+      def should_pass_with_should
+        1.should == 1
+      end
+
+      def should_fail_with_should
+        1.should == 2
+      end
+    end
+    """
+    When I run "<Command> example_group_with_should_methods.rb"
+    Then the exit code should be 256
+    And the stdout should match "2 examples, 1 failure"
+
+  Scenarios: Run with ruby and spec
+    | Command |
+    | ruby    |
+    | spec    |

data/features-pending/example_groups/implicit_docstrings.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+Feature: implicit docstrings
+
+  As an RSpec user
+  I want examples to generate their own names
+  So that I can reduce duplication between example names and example code
+
+  Scenario Outline: run passing examples
+    Given a file named "implicit_docstrings_example.rb" with:
+    """
+    require 'rspec/autorun'
+    describe "Examples with no docstrings generate their own:" do
+
+      specify { 3.should be < 5 }
+
+      specify { ["a"].should include("a") }
+
+      specify { [1,2,3].should respond_to(:size) }
+
+    end
+    """
+
+    When I run "<Command> implicit_docstrings_example.rb -fs"
+
+    Then the stdout should match /should be < 5/
+    And the stdout should match /should include "a"/
+    And the stdout should match /should respond to #size/
+
+  Scenarios: Run with ruby and spec
+    | Command |
+    | ruby    |
+    | spec    |
+
+  Scenario Outline: run failing examples
+    Given a file named "failing_implicit_docstrings_example.rb" with:
+    """
+    require 'rspec/autorun'
+    describe "Failing examples with no descriptions" do
+
+      # description is auto-generated as "should equal(5)" based on the last #should
+      it do
+        3.should equal(2)
+        5.should equal(5)
+      end
+
+      it { 3.should be > 5 }
+
+      it { ["a"].should include("b") }
+
+      it { [1,2,3].should_not respond_to(:size) }
+
+    end
+    """
+
+    When I run "<Command> failing_implicit_docstrings_example.rb -fs"
+
+    Then the stdout should match /should equal 2/
+    And the stdout should match /should be > 5/
+    And the stdout should match /should include "b"/
+    And the stdout should match /should not respond to #size/

data/features-pending/example_groups/nested_groups.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+Feature: Nested example groups
+
+  As an RSpec user
+  I want to nest examples groups
+  So that I can better organize my examples
+
+  Scenario Outline: Nested example groups
+    Given a file named "nested_example_groups.rb" with:
+    """
+    require 'rspec/autorun'
+
+    describe "Some Object" do
+      describe "with some more context" do
+        it "should do this" do
+          true.should be_true
+        end
+      end
+      describe "with some other context" do
+        it "should do that" do
+          false.should be_false
+        end
+      end
+    end
+    """
+    When I run "<Command> nested_example_groups.rb -fs"
+    Then the stdout should match /Some Object with some more context/
+    And the stdout should match /Some Object with some other context/
+
+  Scenarios: Run with ruby and spec
+    | Command |
+    | ruby    |
+    | spec    |

data/features-pending/expectations/expect_change.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+Feature: expect change
+
+  Expect some code (wrapped in a proc) to change the state of some object.
+  
+  Scenario: expecting change
+    Given a file named "expect_change.rb" with:
+      """
+      class Counter
+        class << self
+          def increment
+            @count ||= 0
+            @count += 1
+          end
+          
+          def count
+            @count ||= 0
+          end
+        end
+      end
+      
+      describe Counter, "#increment" do
+        it "should increment the count" do
+          expect{Counter.increment}.to change{Counter.count}.from(0).to(1)
+        end
+
+        # deliberate failure
+        it "should increment the count by 2" do
+          expect{Counter.increment}.to change{Counter.count}.by(2)
+        end
+      end
+      """
+    When I run "spec expect_change.rb"
+    Then the stdout should match "2 examples, 1 failure"
+    Then the stdout should match "should have been changed by 2, but was changed by 1"
+
+  Scenario: expecting no change
+    Given a file named "expect_no_change.rb" with:
+      """
+      class Counter
+        class << self
+          def increment
+            @count ||= 0
+            @count += 1
+          end
+          
+          def count
+            @count ||= 0
+          end
+        end
+      end
+
+      describe Counter, "#increment" do
+        it "should not increment the count by 2" do
+          expect{Counter.increment}.to_not change{Counter.count}.from(0).to(2)
+        end
+
+        # deliberate failure
+        it "should not increment the count by 1" do
+          expect{Counter.increment}.to_not change{Counter.count}.by(1)
+        end
+      end
+      """
+    When I run "spec expect_no_change.rb"
+    Then the stdout should match "2 examples, 1 failure"
+    Then the stdout should match "should not have changed, but did change from 1 to 2"