rspec Ruby Software

Interesting little rSpec gotcha

This one had Adam and me stumped for a while. Trying to check that a method is only called on objects that respond to it:

describe "Foo#call_all_the_things" do
  let(:foo_1) { stub :foo_1, bar: "hello" }
  let(:foo_2) { stub :foo_2 }
  subject { foo_1, foo_2 }

  it "only calls bar on objects that respond to it" do
    foo_1.should_receive :bar
    foo_2.should_not_receive :bar

class Foo
  def initialize *things
    @things = things

  def call_all_the_things method
    @things.each do |thing|
      thing.send method if thing.respond_to? method

  1) Foo#call_all_the_things only calls bar on objects that respond to it
     Failure/Error: thing.send method if thing.respond_to? method
       (Stub :foo_2).bar(no args)
           expected: 0 times
           received: 1 time

Hmm. Why is it calling bar on the thing that doesn’t respond to it? Perhaps rSpec doubles don’t handle respond_to? properly?

[1] pry(main)> require "rspec/mocks/standalone"
=> true
[2] pry(main)> foo = stub foo: 123
=> #<RSpec::Mocks::Mock:0x3fd07d246f34 @name=nil>
[3] pry(main)> foo.respond_to? :foo
=> true
[4] pry(main)> foo.respond_to? :bar
=> false


FX: lightbulb above head

Of course! To do the should_not_receive check, it needs to stub the method, which means it responds to it!

Two possible solutions: either let the fact that the missing method isn’t called be tested implicitly, or specify that when objects that don’t respond to the method exist, no NoMethodError is raised.

One reply on “Interesting little rSpec gotcha”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.