adzap

                            
              /´¯/)        
            ,/¯ /         
           /  /´¯/'¯¯'/´¯¯¯`·¸ 
          /  /   /    /       /¨¯\ 
        ('(   ´   ´     ¯~/'   ') 
         \                 '     / 
          ''   \           _ ·´ 
            \              ( 
              \             \

adzap

# I have a class that delegates functionality to a couple of objects that it
# constructs.  I want to test this in isolation. I want to make sure that the
# objects are constructed with the right arguments. I also want to make sure
# that the results from the objects are handled correctly.
#
# I'm finding it hard to structure the code and test in a way that isn't
# cumbersome. What's below works, but it feels like a lot of stubbing and setup
# for something the should be simpler.
#
# Anyone got a better approach for this?

adzap

# I have a class that delegates functionality to a couple of objects that it
# constructs.  I want to test this in isolation. I want to make sure that the
# objects are constructed with the right arguments. I also want to make sure
# that the results from the objects are handled correctly.
#
# I'm finding it hard to structure the code and test in a way that isn't
# cumbersome. What's below works, but it feels like a lot of stubbing and setup
# for something the should be simpler.
#
# Anyone got a better approach for this?

adzap

# By leaning hard on the declarative nature of let(), you get to use
# a pattern where there is a single shared example whose
# expected result is defined at a lower level in the code.
# It is not really a pattern that is intuitive to everyone when
# they read this sort of code for the first time, so I am not about
# to claim it is better than other approaches, only different.

# There is no need for explicit tests to assert that the correct
# arguments are passed to the validators in this example, because
# if the arguments are not correct the doubles will not return the