Avoid `and_return` with RSpec mocks about guides HOT 8 CLOSED

cc @gylaz who first pointed this out to me

from guides.

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.

from guides.

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.

from guides.

Apparently you can do this:

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

I vote for that if #175 is merged.

from guides.

Ooh, I quite like that.

from guides.

@jessieay want to reopen this in pull request form?

from guides.

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

from guides.

@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 :)

from guides.