Jasmine object “has no method 'andReturn'”

Question

Beginner with Jasmine, very first attempt with Jasmine Spies. I thought I was mimicking the format displayed here (search: "andReturn"), but I'm getting an error that I can't work out:

TypeError: Object function () {
        callTracker.track({
          object: this,
          args: Array.prototype.slice.apply(arguments)
        });
        return spyStrategy.exec.apply(this, arguments);
      } has no method 'andReturn'

No clue what I'm doing wrong. Here's my Spec:

describe('Die', function() {
    it('returns a value when you roll it', function() {
        var die = Object.create(Die);
        spyOn(Math, 'random').andReturn(1);
        expect(die.roll()).toEqual(6);
    });
});

And the corresponding JS:

var Die = 
{   
    roll: function() {
        return Math.floor(Math.random() * 5 + 1);
    }
}

Thanks for the help!!!

Solution 1

jasmine 2.0 changed some of the spy syntax. jasmine 2.0 docs

spyOn(Math, 'random').and.returnValue(1);

Solution 2

try this

spyOn(Math, 'random').and.returnValue(1);

Solution 3

I made a jasmine test where I show this kind of mock. andReturn seems to be working. http://jsfiddle.net/LNWXn/

it("has a value of 1 with and return", function() {
    spyOn(Math, 'random').andReturn(1); 
    expect(Math.random()).toBe(1);
});

You have to keep in mind that it's only mocked for the scope of the test. Here's one with your example that seems to pass. http://jsfiddle.net/LNWXn/2/

Hope this helped!

Solution 4

use and.returnValue() insted of andReturn()

View more solutions

Comments

[i_made_that]

Thanks! I actually think that the problem might have something to do with the fact that I was using dist 2.0. I recreated the exact tests in 1.3.1 and they worked just fine.

[i_made_that]

By chaining the spy with and.returnValue, all calls to the function will return a specific value.

[i_made_that]

Yes! Looks like andReturn is now and.returnValue.

[David Tengdin]

This is the current 2.0.0 jasmine syntax

[Jezen Thomas]

Would have been better to provide the code in the answer, rather than just link to the docs.