Checking The WHERE CLAUSE clause in rspec testing - ruby-on-rails

I have a named scope in rails and i have model by name Product
class Product < ApplicationRecord
scope :old_products, -> { where("tagged_with = ?","old") }
end
Have any body encountered the process of checking the subject which is using where in the active record and that can check the what where clause does the named scope actually holds
In rspec spec/models/product_spec.rb
describe Product do
describe "checking scope clauses" do
subject { Product.old_products }
its(:where_clauses) { should eq([
"tagged_with = 'old'"
]) }
end
end
end
By the way i use rspec-2.89 version with the rails-5 version so any chances that we can check and verify the where clauses

I personally don't think checking returned SQL of a scope is sufficient. The way I would test old_products is:
describe Product do
describe "scopes" do
describe "old_products" do
let!(:old_product) {Product.create(tagged_with: 'old')}
let!(:not_old_product) {Product.create(tagged_with: 'sth_else')}
subject { Product.old_products }
it "returns the product(s) with tagged_with = old" do
expect(subject).to eq([old_product])
end
end
end
end
If you still want to check the return query, may want to try:
it "..." do
expect(subject.to_sql).to eq("SELECT \"products\".* FROM \"products\" WHERE \"products\".\"tagged_with\" = 'old'")
end

# This is better, more readable syntax for scope declaration
class Product < ApplicationRecord
scope :old_products, -> { where(tagged_with: 'old') }
end
# Something like this would work
describe Product do
context 'scopes' do
# Set up something that will always be excluded from the scopes
let!(:product) { create :product }
let!(:scoped_list) { create :product, 3, tagged_with: tag }
shared_examples_for 'returns scoped records' do
# This should work with shoulda-matchers
# (https://github.com/thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers)
# Could also not use subject and do something like:
# expect(
# described_class.send(scope_name.to_sym)
# ).to contain_exactly(scoped_list)
# and declare let(:scope_name) in your describe blocks
it 'returns scoped products' do
should contain_exactly(scoped_list)
end
end
describe '.old_products' do
subject(:old_products) { described_class.old_products }
let(:tag) { 'old' }
it_behaves_like 'returns scoped records'
end
describe '.other_scope' do
subject(:other_scope) { described_class.other_scope }
let(:tag) { 'other_tag' }
it_behaves_like 'returns scoped records'
end
end
end
There is no value in testing the actual SQL -- it's generated by Rails; what you want to test is that your scope is returning the correct objects
I would use context instead of describe when declaring the scopes test block because you're not describing a class or instance method
Use single quotes instead of double quotes unless you are doing string interpolation -- it's more performant
If you're early in the project and each Product only has a single tag, I would also rename the tagged_with column to be tag

describe Product do
describe "checking scope clauses" do
subject { Product.old_products }
expect(subject.values[:where].instance_values['predicates'].to eq(["tagged_with = 'old'"])
end
end

Related

Rspec Rails - Stub Active Record Relation to iterate using :find_each

I'm trying to test if a specific attribute some_field gets assigned with correct values. I'm currently not persisting the records on the DB due to speed issues so I need a way thru stubs only.
Here's a sample method:
class Teacher < ApplicationRecord
has_many :students
def my_method
...
teacher.students.find_each do |s|
s.some_field[:foo] = 'bar'
s.save
end
end
end
Here's the test spec which is failing since :find_each only works with ActiveRecord Relations:
it 'assigns a correct value in some_field attribute' do
allow(teacher).to receive(:students).and_return([student1])
allow(student1).to receive(:save)
teacher.my_method
expect(student1.some_field).to eq({ foo: 'bar' })
end
Error:
NoMethodError:
undefined method `find_each' for #<Array:0x00007fa08a94b308>
I'm wondering if there's a way for this without persisting in DB?
Any help will be appreciated.
Also mock the find_each and return regular each instead.
let(:teacher) { double }
let(:students_mock) { double }
let(:student1) { double }
it do
expect(teacher).to receive(:students).and_return(students_mock)
expect(students_mock).to receive(:find_each) { |&block| [student1].each(&block) }
expect(student1).to receive(:save)
teacher.students.find_each(&:save)
end

Testing custom validation method with RSpec

I try to test validation method that check times overlap for activities.
There are three factories(two of them inherit from activity).
Factories:
activities.rb
FactoryGirl.define do
factory :activity do
name 'Fit Girls'
description { Faker::Lorem.sentence(3, true, 4) }
active true
day_of_week 'Thusday'
start_on '12:00'
end_on '13:00'
pool_zone 'B'
max_people { Faker::Number.number(2) }
association :person, factory: :trainer
factory :first do
name 'Swim Cycle'
description 'Activity with water bicycles.'
active true
day_of_week 'Thusday'
start_on '11:30'
end_on '12:30'
end
factory :second do
name 'Aqua Crossfit'
description 'Water crossfit for evereyone.'
active true
day_of_week 'Thusday'
start_on '12:40'
end_on '13:40'
pool_zone 'C'
max_people '30'
end
end
end
Activities overlaps when are on same day_of_week(activity.day_of_week == first.day_of_week), on same pool_zone(activity.pool_zone == first.pool_zone) and times overlaps.
Validation method:
def not_overlapping_activity
overlapping_activity = Activity.where(day_of_week: day_of_week)
.where(pool_zone: pool_zone)
activities = Activity.where(id: id)
if activities.blank?
overlapping_activity.each do |oa|
if (start_on...end_on).overlaps?(oa.start_on...oa.end_on)
errors.add(:base, "In this time and pool_zone is another activity.")
end
end
else
overlapping_activity.where('id != :id', id: id).each do |oa|
if (start_on...end_on).overlaps?(oa.start_on...oa.end_on)
errors.add(:base, "In this time and pool_zone is another activity.")
end
end
end
end
I wrote rspec test, but unfortunatelly invalid checks.
describe Activity, 'methods' do
subject { Activity }
describe '#not_overlapping_activity' do
let(:activity) { create(:activity) }
let(:first) { create(:first) }
it 'should have a valid factory' do
expect(create(:activity).errors).to be_empty
end
it 'should have a valid factory' do
expect(create(:first).errors).to be_empty
end
context 'when day_of_week, pool_zone are same and times overlap' do
it 'raises an error that times overlap' do
expect(activity.valid?).to be_truthy
expect(first.valid?).to be_falsey
expect(first.errors[:base].size).to eq 1
end
end
end
end
Return:
Failure/Error: expect(first.valid?).to be_falsey
expected: falsey value
got: true
I can't understand why it got true. First create(:activity) should be right, but next shouldn't be executed(overlapping).
I tried add expect(activity.valid?).to be truthy before expect(first.valid?..., but throws another error ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid. Could someone repair my test? I'm newbie with creation tests using RSpec.
UPDATE:
Solution for my problem is not create :first in test but build.
let(:first) { build(:first) }
This line on its own
let(:activity) { create(:activity) }
doesn't create an activity. It only creates an activity, when activity is actually called. Therefore you must call activity somewhere before running your test.
There are several ways to do so, for example a before block:
before { activity }
or you could use let! instead of just let.

How to complete the rspec put controller test from scaffold

I'm using scaffolding to generate rspec controller tests. By default, it creates the test as:
let(:valid_attributes) {
skip("Add a hash of attributes valid for your model")
}
describe "PUT update" do
describe "with valid params" do
let(:new_attributes) {
skip("Add a hash of attributes valid for your model")
}
it "updates the requested doctor" do
company = Company.create! valid_attributes
put :update, {:id => company.to_param, :company => new_attributes}, valid_session
company.reload
skip("Add assertions for updated state")
end
Using FactoryGirl, I've filled this in with:
let(:valid_attributes) { FactoryGirl.build(:company).attributes.symbolize_keys }
describe "PUT update" do
describe "with valid params" do
let(:new_attributes) { FactoryGirl.build(:company, name: 'New Name').attributes.symbolize_keys }
it "updates the requested company", focus: true do
company = Company.create! valid_attributes
put :update, {:id => company.to_param, :company => new_attributes}, valid_session
company.reload
expect(assigns(:company).attributes.symbolize_keys[:name]).to eq(new_attributes[:name])
This works, but it seems like I should be able to test all attributes, instead of just testing the changed name. I tried changing the last line to:
class Hash
def delete_mutable_attributes
self.delete_if { |k, v| %w[id created_at updated_at].member?(k) }
end
end
expect(assigns(:company).attributes.delete_mutable_attributes.symbolize_keys).to eq(new_attributes)
That almost worked, but I'm getting the following error from rspec having to do with BigDecimal fields:
-:latitude => #<BigDecimal:7fe376b430c8,'0.8137713195 830835E2',27(27)>,
-:longitude => #<BigDecimal:7fe376b43078,'-0.1270954650 1027958E3',27(27)>,
+:latitude => #<BigDecimal:7fe3767eadb8,'0.8137713195 830835E2',27(27)>,
+:longitude => #<BigDecimal:7fe3767ead40,'-0.1270954650 1027958E3',27(27)>,
Using rspec, factory_girl, and scaffolding is incredibly common, so my questions are:
What is a good example of an rspec and factory_girl test for a PUT update with valid params?
Is it necessary to use attributes.symbolize_keys and to delete the mutable keys? How can I get those BigDecimal objects to evaluate as eq?
Ok so this is how I do, I don't pretend to strictly follow the best practices, but I focus on precision of my tests, clarity of my code, and fast execution of my suite.
So let take example of a UserController
1- I do not use FactoryGirl to define the attributes to post to my controller, because I want to keep control of those attributes. FactoryGirl is useful to create record, but you always should set manually the data involved in the operation you are testing, it's better for readability and consistency.
In this regard we will manually define the posted attributes
let(:valid_update_attributes) { {first_name: 'updated_first_name', last_name: 'updated_last_name'} }
2- Then I define the attributes I expect for the updated record, it can be an exact copy of the posted attributes, but it can be that the controller do some extra work and we also want to test that. So let's say for our example that once our user updated his personal information our controller automatically add a need_admin_validation flag
let(:expected_update_attributes) { valid_update_attributes.merge(need_admin_validation: true) }
That's also where you can add assertion for attribute that must remain unchanged. Example with the field age, but it can be anything
let(:expected_update_attributes) { valid_update_attributes.merge(age: 25, need_admin_validation: true) }
3- I define the action, in a let block. Together with the previous 2 let I find it makes my specs very readable. And it also make easy to write shared_examples
let(:action) { patch :update, format: :js, id: record.id, user: valid_update_attributes }
4- (from that point everything is in shared example and custom rspec matchers in my projects) Time to create the original record, for that we can use FactoryGirl
let!(:record) { FactoryGirl.create :user, :with_our_custom_traits, age: 25 }
As you can see we manually set the value for age as we want to verify it did not change during the update action. Also, even if the factory already set the age to 25 I always overwrite it so my test won't break if I change the factory.
Second thing to note: here we use let! with a bang. That is because sometimes you may want to test your controller's fail action, and the best way to do that is to stub valid? and return false. Once you stub valid? you can't create records for the same class anymore, therefor let! with a bang would create the record before the stub of valid?
5- The assertions itself (and finally the answer to your question)
before { action }
it {
assert_record_values record.reload, expected_update_attributes
is_expected.to redirect_to(record)
expect(controller.notice).to eq('User was successfully updated.')
}
Summarize So adding all the above, this is how the spec looks like
describe 'PATCH update' do
let(:valid_update_attributes) { {first_name: 'updated_first_name', last_name: 'updated_last_name'} }
let(:expected_update_attributes) { valid_update_attributes.merge(age: 25, need_admin_validation: true) }
let(:action) { patch :update, format: :js, id: record.id, user: valid_update_attributes }
let(:record) { FactoryGirl.create :user, :with_our_custom_traits, age: 25 }
before { action }
it {
assert_record_values record.reload, expected_update_attributes
is_expected.to redirect_to(record)
expect(controller.notice).to eq('User was successfully updated.')
}
end
assert_record_values is the helper that will make your rspec simpler.
def assert_record_values(record, values)
values.each do |field, value|
record_value = record.send field
record_value = record_value.to_s if (record_value.is_a? BigDecimal and value.is_a? String) or (record_value.is_a? Date and value.is_a? String)
expect(record_value).to eq(value)
end
end
As you can see with this simple helper when we expect for a BigDecimal, we can just write the following, and the helper do the rest
let(:expected_update_attributes) { {latitude: '0.8137713195'} }
So at the end, and to conclude, when you have written your shared_examples, helpers, and custom matchers, you can keep your specs super DRY. As soon as you start repeating the same thing in your controllers specs find how you can refactor this. It may take time at first, but when its done you can write the tests for a whole controller in few minutes
And a last word (I can't stop, I love Rspec) here is how my full helper look like. It is usable for anything in fact, not just models.
def assert_records_values(records, values)
expect(records.length).to eq(values.count), "Expected <#{values.count}> number of records, got <#{records.count}>\n\nRecords:\n#{records.to_a}"
records.each_with_index do |record, index|
assert_record_values record, values[index], index: index
end
end
def assert_record_values(record, values, index: nil)
values.each do |field, value|
record_value = [field].flatten.inject(record) { |object, method| object.try :send, method }
record_value = record_value.to_s if (record_value.is_a? BigDecimal and value.is_a? String) or (record_value.is_a? Date and value.is_a? String)
expect_string_or_regexp record_value, value,
"#{"(index #{index}) " if index}<#{field}> value expected to be <#{value.inspect}>. Got <#{record_value.inspect}>"
end
end
def expect_string_or_regexp(value, expected, message = nil)
if expected.is_a? String
expect(value).to eq(expected), message
else
expect(value).to match(expected), message
end
end
This is the questioner posting. I had to go down the rabbit hole a bit in understanding multiple, overlapping issues here, so I just wanted to report back on the solution I found.
tldr; It's too much trouble trying to confirm that every important attribute comes back unchanged from a PUT. Just check that the changed attribute is what you expect.
The issues I encountered:
FactoryGirl.attributes_for does not return all values, so FactoryGirl: attributes_for not giving me associated attributes suggests using (Factory.build :company).attributes.symbolize_keys, which winds up creating new problems.
Specifically, Rails 4.1 enums show as integers instead of enum values, as reported here: https://github.com/thoughtbot/factory_girl/issues/680
It turns out that the BigDecimal issue was a red herring, caused by a bug in the rspec matcher which produces incorrect diffs. This was established here: https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/issues/1649
The actual matcher failure is caused by Date values that don't match. This is due to the time returned being different, but it doesn't show because Date.inspect does not show milliseconds.
I got around these problems with a monkey patched Hash method that symbolizes keys and stringifes values.
Here's the Hash method, which could go in rails_spec.rb:
class Hash
def symbolize_and_stringify
Hash[
self
.delete_if { |k, v| %w[id created_at updated_at].member?(k) }
.map { |k, v| [k.to_sym, v.to_s] }
]
end
end
Alternatively (and perhaps preferably) I could have written a custom rspec matcher than iterates through each attribute and compares their values individually, which would have worked around the date issue. That was the approach of the assert_records_values method at the bottom of the answer I selected by #Benjamin_Sinclaire (for which, thank you).
However, I decided instead to go back to the much, much simpler approach of sticking with attributes_for and just comparing the attribute I changed. Specifically:
let(:valid_attributes) { FactoryGirl.attributes_for(:company) }
let(:valid_session) { {} }
describe "PUT update" do
describe "with valid params" do
let(:new_attributes) { FactoryGirl.attributes_for(:company, name: 'New Name') }
it "updates the requested company" do
company = Company.create! valid_attributes
put :update, {:id => company.to_param, :company => new_attributes}, valid_session
company.reload
expect(assigns(:company).attributes['name']).to match(new_attributes[:name])
end
I hope this post allows others to avoid repeating my investigations.
Well, I did something that's quite simpler, I'm using Fabricator, but I'm pretty sure it's the same with FactoryGirl:
let(:new_attributes) ( { "phone" => 87276251 } )
it "updates the requested patient" do
patient = Fabricate :patient
put :update, id: patient.to_param, patient: new_attributes
patient.reload
# skip("Add assertions for updated state")
expect(patient.attributes).to include( { "phone" => 87276251 } )
end
Also, I'm not sure why you are building a new factory, PUT verb is supposed to add new stuff, right?. And what you are testing if what you added in the first place (new_attributes), happens to exist after the put in the same model.
This code can be used to solve your two issues:
it "updates the requested patient" do
patient = Patient.create! valid_attributes
patient_before = JSON.parse(patient.to_json).symbolize_keys
put :update, { :id => patient.to_param, :patient => new_attributes }, valid_session
patient.reload
patient_after = JSON.parse(patient.to_json).symbolize_keys
patient_after.delete(:updated_at)
patient_after.keys.each do |attribute_name|
if new_attributes.keys.include? attribute_name
# expect updated attributes to have changed:
expect(patient_after[attribute_name]).to eq new_attributes[attribute_name].to_s
else
# expect non-updated attributes to not have changed:
expect(patient_after[attribute_name]).to eq patient_before[attribute_name]
end
end
end
It solves the problem of comparing floating point numbers by converting the values to it string representation using JSON.
It also solves the problem of checking that the new values have been updated but the rest of the attributes have not changed.
In my experience, though, as the complexity grows, the usual thing to do is to check some specific object state instead of "expecting that the attributes I don't update won't change". Imagine, for instance, having some other attributes changing as the update is done in the controller, like "remaining items", "some status attributes"... You would like to check the specific expected changes, that may be more than the updated attributes.
Here is my way of testing PUT. That is a snippet from my notes_controller_spec, the main idea should be clear (tell me if not):
RSpec.describe NotesController, :type => :controller do
let(:note) { FactoryGirl.create(:note) }
let(:valid_note_params) { FactoryGirl.attributes_for(:note) }
let(:request_params) { {} }
...
describe "PUT 'update'" do
subject { put 'update', request_params }
before(:each) { request_params[:id] = note.id }
context 'with valid note params' do
before(:each) { request_params[:note] = valid_note_params }
it 'updates the note in database' do
expect{ subject }.to change{ Note.where(valid_note_params).count }.by(1)
end
end
end
end
Instead of FactoryGirl.build(:company).attributes.symbolize_keys, I'd write FactoryGirl.attributes_for(:company). It is shorter and contains only parameters that you specified in your factory.
Unfortunately that is all I can say about your questions.
P.S. Though if you lay BigDecimal equality check on database layer by writing in style like
expect{ subject }.to change{ Note.where(valid_note_params).count }.by(1)
this may work for you.
Testing the rails application with rspec-rails gem.
Created the scaffold of user.
Now you need to pass all the examples for the user_controller_spec.rb
This has already written by the scaffold generator. Just implement
let(:valid_attributes){ hash_of_your_attributes} .. like below
let(:valid_attributes) {{ first_name: "Virender", last_name: "Sehwag", gender: "Male"}
}
Now will pass many examples from this file.
For invalid_attributes be sure to add the validations on any of field and
let(:invalid_attributes) {{first_name: "br"}
}
In the users model .. validation for first_name is as =>
validates :first_name, length: {minimum: 5}, allow_blank: true
Now all the examples created by the generators will pass for this controller_spec

Testing association validations with RSpec and FactoryGirl

I'm currently trying to write an RSpec test for a validation method. This method is triggered when the record is updated, saved or created. Here is what I have so far:
product.rb (model)
class Product < ActiveRecord::Base
validate :single_product
# Detects if a product has more than one SKU when attempting to set the single product field as true
# The sku association needs to map an attribute block in order to count the number of records successfully
# The standard self.skus.count is performed using the record ID, which none of the SKUs currently have
#
# #return [boolean]
def single_product
if self.single && self.skus.map { |s| s.active }.count > 1
errors.add(:single, " product cannot be set if the product has more than one SKU.")
return false
end
end
end
products.rb (FactoryGirl test data)
FactoryGirl.define do
factory :product do
sequence(:name) { |n| "#{Faker::Lorem.word}#{Faker::Lorem.characters(8)}#{n}" }
meta_description { Faker::Lorem.characters(10) }
short_description { Faker::Lorem.characters(15) }
description { Faker::Lorem.characters(20) }
sku { Faker::Lorem.characters(5) }
sequence(:part_number) { |n| "GA#{n}" }
featured false
active false
sequence(:weighting) { |n| n }
single false
association :category
factory :product_skus do
after(:build) do |product, evaluator|
build_list(:sku, 3, product: product)
end
end
end
end
product_spec.rb (unit test)
require 'spec_helper'
describe Product do
describe "Setting a product as a single product" do
let!(:product) { build(:product_skus, single: true) }
context "when the product has more than one SKU" do
it "should raise an error" do
expect(product).to have(1).errors_on(:single)
end
end
end
end
As you can see from the singe_product method, I'm trying to trigger an error on the single attribute when the single attribute is set to true and the product has more than one associated SKU. However, when running the test the product has no associated SKUs and therefore fails the unit test shown above.
How do I build a record and generate associated SKUs which can be counted (e.g: product.skus.count) and validated before they are all created in FactoryGirl?
You could write this like
it 'should raise an error' do
product = build(:product_skus, single: true)
expect(product).not_to be_valid
end

Testing an expected order of an array in RSpec / Rails

In a RSpec spec file I have the following test
it 'should return 5 players with ratings closest to the current_users rating' do
matched_players = User.find(:all,
:select => ["*,(abs(rating - current_user.rating)) as player_rating"],
:order => "player_rating",
:limit => 5)
# test that matched_players array returns what it is suppose to
end
How would I complete this to test that matched_players is returning the correct users.
I think you should first introduce some test users to the test DB (using for example a Factory) and afterwards see that the test is returning the correct ones.
Also it would make more sense to have a method in your model that would return the matched users.
For example:
describe "Player matching" do
before(:each) do
#user1 = FactoryGirl.create(:user, :rating => 5)
...
#user7 = FactoryGirl.create(:user, :rating => 3)
end
it 'should return 5 players with ratings closest to the current_users rating' do
matched_players = User.matched_players
matched_players.should eql [#user1,#user3,#user4,#user5,#user6]
end
end
Your model shouldn't know about your current user (the controllers know about this concept)
You need to extract this as a method on the User class otherwise there's no point in testing it, i.e. why test logic that isn't even in your app code?
The function that gets the matched players doesn't need to know about the current user, or any user for that matter, just the rating.
To test it, create a bunch of User instances, call the method, and see that the result is a list of the correct user instances you expect.
models/user.rb
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
...
def self.matched_players(current_user_rating)
find(:all,
select: ["*,(abs(rating - #{current_user_rating)) as match_strength"],
order: "match_strength",
limit: 5)
end
...
end
spec/models/user_spec.rb
describe User do
...
describe "::matched_players" do
context "when there are at least 5 users" do
before do
10.times.each do |n|
instance_variable_set "#user#{n}", User.create(rating: n)
end
end
it "returns 5 users whose ratings are closest to the given rating, ordered by closeness" do
matched_players = described_class.matched_players(4.2)
matched_players.should == [#user4, #user5, #user3, #user6, #user2]
end
context "when multiple players have ratings close to the given rating and are equidistant" do
# we don't care how 'ties' are broken
it "returns 5 users whose ratings are closest to the given rating, ordered by closeness" do
matched_players = described_class.matched_players(4)
matched_players[0].should == #user4
matched_players[1,2].should =~ [#user5, #user3]
matched_players[3,4].should =~ [#user6, #user2]
end
end
end
context "when there are fewer than 5 players in total" do
...
end
...
end
...
end

Resources