I am trying to write two RSpec tests for two different problems that are much more advanced that what I'm used to writing.
What I'm trying to test within my controller:
def index
#buildings ||= building_class.active.where(place: current_place)
end
My attempt at writing the RSpec test:
describe 'GET :index' do
it "assigns #buildings" do
#buildings ||= building_class.active.where(place: current_place)
get :index
expect(assigns(:buildings)).to eq([building])
end
end
This test failed and wouldn't even run so I know I'm missing something.
My second test is needing to test the returned value of a class method. Here is what I am needing to test within the controller:
def class_name
ABC::Accountant::Business
end
Here is my attempt at testing this method:
describe "class name returns ABC::Accountant::Business" do
subject do
expect(subject.class_name).to eq(ABC::Accountant::Business)
end
end
For the first test I would do something like this:
First, I would move that .active.where(place: current_place) to a scope (I'm guessing building_class returns Building or something like that):
class Building << ApplicationRecord
scope :active_in, -> (place) { active.where(place: place)
Then it's easier to stub for the test
describe 'GET :index' do
it "assigns #buildings" do
scoped_buildings = double(:buildings)
expect(Building).to receive(:active_in).and_return(scoped_buildings)
get :index
expect(assigns(:buildings)).to eq(scoped_buildings)
end
end
Then your controller will do
#buildings ||= building_class.active_in(current_place)
This way you are testing two things: that the controller actually calls the scope and that the controller assigns the returned value on the #buildings variable (you don't really need to test the actual buidlings, you can test the scope on the model spec).
Personally, I feel like it would be better to do something like #buildings = current_place.active_buildings using the same idea of the scope to test that you are getting the active buildings of the current place.
EDIT: if you can't modify your controller, then the stubbing is a little different and it implies some chaining of methods that I don't like to explicitly test.
scoped_buildings = double(:buildings)
controller.stub_chain(:building_class, :active, :where).and_return(scoped_building)
get :index
expect(assings(:buildings)).to eq scoped_buildings
Note that now your test depends on a specific implementation and testing implementation is a bad practice, one should test behaviour and not implementation.
For the second, I guess something like this should work:
describe ".class_name" do
it "returns ABC::Accountant::Business" do
expect(controller.class_name).to eq(ABC::Accountant::Business)
end
end
IMHO, that the method's name if confusing, class_name gives the idea that it returns a string, you are not returnin a name, you are returning a class. Maybe you can change that method to resource_class or something less confusing.
Related
Having been inspired by Sandi Metz's approach to writing tests (http://www.confreaks.com/videos/2452-railsconf2013-the-magic-tricks-of-testing), I am trying to refactor a test for a Rails controller to assert that it is sending a command message properly.
Here are the relevant parts of the Application:
class DealsController < ApplicationController
def index
if params[:reset]
deal_filter.reset
...
class ApplicationController
def deal_filter
...
#deal_filter ||= DealFilter.new(args)
end
...
class DealFilter
def reset
...do work...
end
...
And here is the rspec test:
describe DealsController do
it "should send 'reset' to the deal_filter" do
df = instance_double("DealFilter")
get :index, reset: "true"
expect(df).to receive(:reset)
end
end
The test results that keep coming back are:
1) DealsController GET index for any user params contain 'reset' should send 'reset' to the deal_filter
Failure/Error: expect(df).to receive(:reset)
(Double "DealFilter (instance)").reset(any args)
expected: 1 time with any arguments
received: 0 times with any arguments
I have already confirmed that the reset param is being sent through the test and that the controller is following the appropriate path, yet the test continues to fail.
Can anyone suggest a possible reason for the failure or resources for further study? I am relatively new to object oriented thinking and using mocks with Rspec. Could it be that I have misunderstood the role of doubles?
Thanks for your time!
You need to make sure your double gets used. I think the best way to do that here is to stub the deal_filter method to return the double.
I addition I would isolate the expection, so that it's the only thing in the it block. This will make it easier to add more expections without duplication the setup logic.
describe DealsController do
let(:df) { instance_double("DealFilter") }
before do
allow(controller).to receive(:deal_filter).and_return(df)
get :index, reset: "true"
end
it "should send 'reset' to the deal_filter" do
expect(df).to have_received(:reset)
end
end
I think you're expecting your instance_double to be used automatically somewhere within the index action. That's not how doubles work. You can create a double and use it for things, but your code in the controller doesn't (and shouldn't) know anything about that double and so won't ever call anything on it.
For an example of how an instance double can actually be used see this documentation.
Another issue with your expectation is that you're not setting it early enough. When you expect an object to receive a method call there needs to be something that happens after that which would invoke that method. In your example the expectation to receive :reset is the very last line of your example.
I'd recommend reading up on how other people have tested controllers with rspec as a good starting place.
I'm following a TDD approach to building our app, and creating a whole bunch of service objects, keeping models strictly for data management.
Many of the services I've built interface with models. Take for example MakePrintsForRunner:
class MakePrintsForRunner
def initialize(runner)
#runner = runner
end
def from_run_report(run_report)
run_report.photos.each do |photo|
Print.create(photo: photo, subject: #runner)
end
end
end
I appreciate the create method could arguably be abstracted into the Print model, but let's keep it as is for now.
Now, in the spec for MakePrintsForRunner I'm keen to avoid including spec_helper, since I want my service specs to be super fast.
Instead, I stub out the Print class like this:
describe RunnerPhotos do
let(:runner) { double }
let(:photo_1) { double(id: 1) }
let(:photo_2) { double(id: 2) }
let(:run_report) { double(photos: [photo_1, photo_2]) }
before(:each) do
#service = RunnerPhotos.new(runner)
end
describe "#create_print_from_run_report(run_report)" do
before(:each) do
class Print; end
allow(Print).to receive(:create)
#service.create_print_from_run_report(run_report)
end
it "creates a print for every run report photo associating it with the runners" do
expect(Print).to have_received(:create).with(photo: photo_1, subject: runner)
expect(Print).to have_received(:create).with(photo: photo_2, subject: runner)
end
end
end
And all goes green. Perfect!
... Not so fast. When I run the whole test suite, depending on the seed order, I am now running into problems.
It appears that the class Print; end line can sometimes overwrite print.rb's definition of Print (which obviously inherits from ActiveRecord) and therefore fail a bunch of tests at various points in the suite. One example is:
NoMethodError:
undefined method 'reflect_on_association' for Print:Class
This makes for an unhappy suite.
Any advice on how to tackle this. While this is one example, there are numerous times where a service is directly referencing a model's method, and I've taken the above approach to stubbing them out. Is there a better way?
You don't have to create the Print class, simply use the one that is loaded, and stub it:
describe RunnerPhotos do
let(:runner) { double }
let(:photo_1) { double(id: 1) }
let(:photo_2) { double(id: 2) }
let(:run_report) { double(photos: [photo_1, photo_2]) }
before(:each) do
#service = RunnerPhotos.new(runner)
end
describe "#create_print_from_run_report(run_report)" do
before(:each) do
allow(Print).to receive(:create)
#service.create_print_from_run_report(run_report)
end
it "creates a print for every run report photo associating it with the runners" do
expect(Print).to have_received(:create).with(photo: photo_1, subject: runner)
expect(Print).to have_received(:create).with(photo: photo_2, subject: runner)
end
end
end
Edit
If you really need to create the class in the scope of this test alone, you can undefine it at the end of the test (from How to undefine class in Ruby?):
before(:all) do
unless Object.constants.include?(:Print)
class TempPrint; end
Print = TempPrint
end
end
after(:all) do
if Object.constants.include?(:TempPrint)
Object.send(:remove_const, :Print)
end
end
I appreciate the create method could arguably be abstracted into the Print model, but let's keep it as is for now.
Let's see what happens if we ignore this line.
Your difficulty in stubbing a class is a sign that the design is inflexible. Consider passing an already-instantiated object to either the constructor of MakePrintsForRunner or the method #from_run_report. Which to choose depends on the permanence of the object - will the configuration of printing need to change at run time? If not, pass to the constructor, if so, pass to the method.
So for our step 1:
class MakePrintsForRunner
def initialize(runner, printer)
#runner = runner
#printer = printer
end
def from_run_report(run_report)
run_report.photos.each do |photo|
#printer.print(photo: photo, subject: #runner)
end
end
end
Now it's interesting that we're passing two objects to the constructor, yet #runner is only ever passed to the #print method of #printer. This could be a sign that #runner doesn't belong here at all:
class MakePrints
def initialize(printer)
#printer = printer
end
def from_run_report(run_report)
run_report.photos.each do |photo|
#printer.print(photo)
end
end
end
We've simplified MakePrintsForRunner into MakePrints. This only takes a printer at construction time, and a report at method invocation time. The complexity of which runner to use is now the responsibility of the new 'printer' role.
Note that the printer is a role, not necessarily a single class. You can swap the implementation for different printing strategies.
Testing should now be simpler:
photo1 = double('photo')
photo2 = double('photo')
run_report = double('run report', photos: [photo1, photo2])
printer = double('printer')
action = MakePrints.new(printer)
allow(printer).to receive(:print)
action.from_run_report(run_report)
expect(printer).to have_received(:print).with(photo1)
expect(printer).to have_received(:print).with(photo2)
These changes might not suit your domain. Perhaps a runner shouldn't be attached to a printer for more than one print. In this case, perhaps you should take a different next step.
Another future refactoring might be for #from_run_report to become #from_photos, since the report isn't used for anything but gathering photos. At this point the class looks a bit anaemic, and might disappear altogether (eaching over photos and calling #print isn't too interesting).
Now, how to test a printer? Integrate with ActiveRecord. This is your adapter to the outside world, and as such should be integration tested. If all it really does is create a record, I probably wouldn't even bother testing it - it's just a wrapper around an ActiveRecord call.
Class names are just constants so you could use stub_const to stub an undefined constant and return a double.
So instead of defining a class in your before(:each) block do this:
before(:each) do
stub_const('Print', double(create: nil))
#service.create_print_from_run_report(run_report)
end
I have this class:
class EnablePost
def initialize(post_klass, id)
raise "oops" if post_klass.blank?
#post_klass = post_klass
#id = id
end
def perform
post = #post_klass.find_by_id(#id)
return unless post
post.update_attribute :enabled, true
end
end
The spec I have to write to test the above:
describe EnablePost do
it "should enable a post" do
post = mock
post.should_receive(:blank?).and_return(false)
post.should_receive(:find_by_id).with(22).and_return(post)
post.should_receive(:update_attribute).with(:enabled, true)
result = EnablePost.new(Post, 22).perform
result.should be_true
end
end
But what I really want to do is treat EnablePost as a black box. I don't want to have to mock :blank?, :find_by_id or :update_attribute.
That is to say I want my spec to look like:
describe EnablePost do
it "should enable a post" do
post = mock
result = EnablePost.new(post, 22).perform
result.should be_true
end
end
What am I missing here? Am I using mocks incorrectly?
Yes, you're confusing mocks and stubs.
A good mock explanation: http://jamesmead.org/talks/2007-07-09-introduction-to-mock-objects-in-ruby-at-lrug/
Mocks:
Different things to different people
Ambiguous terminology
Confusion with Rails “mocks”
Mock Object:
Expected method invocations set in advance
Verifies actual invocations match expected ones
Also check out http://martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html [thanks to user Zombies in the comments]
If you're using RSpec, it aliases double, mock, and stub. RSpec expects you to choose whichever method name makes your code clearest.
Your first chunk of test code is using the word "mock" correctly. You're setting up the method invocations that you expect to be called, in advance, and then performing them.
However, you're testing two different areas of your code: the first area is the initialize method, the second is the #perform method.
You may find it easier to mock and stub if you write smaller methods:
# What you want to test here is the raise and the member variables.
# You will stub the post_klass.
def initialize(post_klass, post_id) # post_id is a better name
raise "oops" if post_klass.blank?
#post_klass = post_klass
#post_id = post_id # because we don't want to mask Object#id
end
attr_accessor :post_id
attr_accessor :post_klass
# What you want to test here is the post_klass calls #find_by_id with post_id.
# See we've changed from using instance variables to methods.
def post
post_klass.find_by_id(post_id)
end
# What you want to test here is if the update happens.
# To test this, stub the #post method.
def perform
p = post
return unless p
p.update_attribute :enabled, true
end
When you write your code this way, you make it easy to stub the #post method.
See this for RSpec example source code showing the difference between mock and stub:
http://blog.firsthand.ca/2011/12/example-using-rspec-double-mock-and.html
I'm trying to decide how to test a method that simply calculates an average of values on associated records. I'm concerned about testing the implementation vs the actual result returned.
Say I have the following models...
class User
has_many :interviews
def interview_grade
interviews.average(:score).round unless interviews.empty?
end
end
class Interview
belongs_to :user
end
And in user_spec.rb I have...
describe "interview_grade" do
let(:user) {User.new}
context "when the user has interviews" do
before { user.stub_chain(:interviews, :empty?){false} }
it "should return an average of the appraisal ratings" do
user.interviews.should_receive(:average).with(:score).and_return(3.2)
user.work_history_grade.should == 3
end
end
context "when the user has no interviews" do
before {Interview.destroy_all}
it "should return nil" do
user.interview_grade.should be_nil
end
end
end
These tests pass but it feels fragile to me. What if interview_grade should actually calculate the sum of the scores (for example). As I'm just testing that a particular chain of methods is called, this passing test wouldn't tell me that the result is actually incorrect.
I have tried stubbing user.interviews in order to setup the available scores for the test to work with but this seems tricky to do in Rails 3 due to the way associations are lazy loaded. i.e. I can't just create an array of Interview objects because it doesn't respond to the average method.
Any advice greatly appreciated.
Coming back to this 3 years later. I would would approach it entirely differently.
The benefit of the code below is that in order to write tests for InterviewGrader I would no longer need to worry about how the scores are attained.
I just give it the scores and test it gives me the correct output.
Also I would never need to worry about the underlying implementation of InterviewGrader. However, if the logic was changed at a later date, the tests would fail.
The new scores method on User would need to be tested separately.
class InterviewGrader
def self.run scores
new(scores).run
end
attr_reader :scores
def initialize(scores)
#scores = scores
end
def run
scores.inject { |sum, score|
sum + score
}.to_f / number_of_scores
end
private
def number_of_scores
scores.length
end
end
class User
has_many :interviews
def scores
interviews.map(&:score)
end
def interview_grade
InterviewGrader.run(scores)
end
end
class Interview
belongs_to :user
end
This is incorrect usage of stubbing and mocking.
In this case you should only test, that interview_grade works, when average returns nil (and this is only case interviews.empty? is used).
The average method is tested by rails itself. round method by ruby tests (i guess). So you not need to test this methods. This is a general idea to test only your own code.
And if you want to test, how interview_grade is calculated, you should create test data (with fixtures or factories). Because you should test separate (in some case) part of system, and in this case separation is wrong: interviews.average and interviews.empty? are dependent in your code, but in spec they independent.
def interview_grade
interviews.average(:score).try(:round)
end
If you rewrite your method in this way, you no need in stubbing and mocking
I haven't been able to find anything for a situation like this. I have a model which has a named scope defined thusly:
class Customer < ActiveRecord::Base
# ...
named_scope :active_customers, :conditions => { :active => true }
end
and I'm trying to stub it out in my Controller spec:
# spec/customers_controller_spec.rb
describe CustomersController do
before(:each) do
Customer.stub_chain(:active_customers).and_return(#customers = mock([Customer]))
end
it "should retrieve a list of all customers" do
get :index
response.should be_success
Customer.should_receive(:active_customers).and_return(#customers)
end
end
This is not working and is failing, saying that Customer expects active_customers but received it 0 times. In my actual controller for the Index action I have #customers = Customer.active_customers. What am I missing to get this to work? Sadly, I'm finding that it's easier to just write the code than it is to think of a test/spec and write that since I know what the spec is describing, just not how to tell RSpec what I want to do.
I think there's some confusion when it comes to stubs and message expectations. Message expectations are basically stubs, where you can set the desired canned response, but they also test for the call to be made by the code being tested. In contrast stubs are just canned responses to the method calls. But don't mix a stub with a message expectation on the same method and test or bad things will happen...
Back to your question, there are two things (or more?) that require spec'ing here:
That the CustomersController calls Customer#active_customers when you do a get on index. Doesn't really matter what Customer#active_customers returns in this spec.
That the active_customers named_scope does in fact return customers where the active field is true.
I think that you are trying to do number 1. If so, remove the whole stub and simply set the message expectation in your test:
describe CustomersController do
it "should be successful and call Customer#active_customers" do
Customer.should_receive(:active_customers)
get :index
response.should be_success
end
end
In the above spec you are not testing what it returns. That's OK since that is the intent of the spec (although your spec is too close to implementation as opposed to behavior, but that's a different topic). If you want the call to active_customers to return something in particular, go ahead and add .and_returns(#whatever) to that message expectation. The other part of the story is to test that active_customers works as expected (ie: a model spec that makes the actual call to the DB).
You should have the array around the mock if you want to test that you receive back an array of Customer records like so:
Customer.stub_chain(:active_customers).and_return(#customers = [mock(Customer)])
stub_chain has worked the best for me.
I have a controller calling
ExerciseLog.this_user(current_user).past.all
And I'm able to stub that like this
ExerciseLog.stub_chain(:this_user,:past).and_return(#exercise_logs = [mock(ExerciseLog),mock(ExerciseLog)])