I have the following code where I create some instances of records using FactoryBot:
describe "#force_recalculation_of_lab_container_labs" do
(1..5).each do |n|
let("lab_#{n}".to_sym) { create(:lab) }
let("lab_container_#{n}".to_sym) { create(:skill_path) }
let("lab_collection_#{n}".to_sym) do
create(:lab_collection, lab_container: eval("lab_container_#{n}"))
end
end
context 'when adding labs' do
it "starts with 0 labs" do
expect(lab_collection_1.labs.count).to eq(0)
end
(1..3).each do |n|
let("lab_collection_inclusion_#{n}") do
create(:lab_collection_inclusion,
included_item_id: eval("lab_#{n}").id,
included_item_type: 'Lab',
lab_collection_id: eval("lab_collection_1").id,
subscribed: 0)
end
end
it "updates the lab total correctly after adding labs" do
binding.pry
end
end
end
From my pry point, I receive the following:
LabCollectionInclusion.count
=> 0
lab_collection_1.lab_collection_inclusions.count
=> 0
When I then call a record individually, it appears to then exist:
lab_collection_inclusion_1
<LabCollectionInclusion:0x000055a45c985b10
id: 1,
included_item_id: 1,
included_item_type: "Lab",
lab_collection_id: 4,
subscribed: false,
created_at: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 10:48:00 UTC +00:00,
updated_at: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 10:48:00 UTC +00:00>
After which point it exists when searching:
LabCollectionInclusion.count
=> 1
lab_collection_1.lab_collection_inclusions.count
=> 1
Obviously I don't want to have to do this for every record so my 2 questions are first of all why is this happening, and second of all how to correct it?
Thanks in advance
This is expected behavior because let is designed to lazy-evaluated. Quote from the docs of let:
Note that let is lazy-evaluated: it is not evaluated until the first time the method it defines is invoked. You can use let! to force the method's invocation before each example.
As described in the documentation: Just let! (note the !) instead of let when you need the records to be created without calling them by their name first.
Related
I am having a weird issue with RSpec that I don't quite understand.
This is my port_stock_spec.rb file:
# == Schema Information
#
# Table name: port_stocks
#
# id :bigint(8) not null, primary key
# portfolio_id :integer
# stock_id :integer
# volume :integer
# transaction_price :float
# current_price :float
# percent_change :float
# created_at :datetime not null
# updated_at :datetime not null
# current_value :float
# dollar_change :float
# total_spend :float
# transaction_date :datetime
# action :integer
# position :integer default("open")
# ticker :string
# slug :string
#
require 'rails_helper'
RSpec.describe PortStock, type: :model do
let(:stock) { create(:stock, price: 10.00) }
let(:portfolio) { create(:portfolio) }
let(:port_stock_1) { create(:port_stock, stock: stock, portfolio: portfolio, transaction_price: stock.price, action: :buy, volume: 100) }
context "associations" do
it { should belong_to(:portfolio) }
it { should belong_to (:stock) }
end
context "methods" do
it "should accurately calculate the positive percent_change of the current PortStock" do
port_stock_1.current_price = 20.00
expect(port_stock_1.calculate_percent_change).to eql 100.00
end
it "should accurately calculate the negative percent_change of the current PortStock" do
port_stock_1.current_price = 5.00
expect(port_stock_1.calculate_percent_change).to eql(-50.00)
end
it "should accurately calculate the negative dollar_change of the current PortStock" do
port_stock_1.current_price = 5.00
port_stock_1.volume = 1000
expect(port_stock_1.calculate_dollar_change).to eql (-5000.00)
end
# more specs that may or may no interact with the let variables.
it "should accurately calculate the portfolio's initial_dollar_value" do
expect(portfolio.initial_dollar_value).to eql 1000.00
end
end
Then I have the following method on my portfolio.rb model:
def calculate_portfolio_initial_dollar_value
if self.portfolio.initial_dollar_value.nil?
self.portfolio.initial_dollar_value = 0.0
end
self.portfolio.initial_dollar_value += (self.transaction_price * self.volume)
self.portfolio.save!
end
When I run my test suite, that last test keeps failing, when it shouldn't:
Failures:
1) PortStock methods should accurately calculate the portfolio's initial_dollar_value
Failure/Error: expect(portfolio.initial_dollar_value).to eql 1000.00
expected: 1000.0
got: 798229.0
(compared using eql?)
# ./spec/models/port_stock_spec.rb:77:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>'
Finished in 5.05 seconds (files took 3.68 seconds to load)
29 examples, 1 failure, 19 pending
So I put a binding.pry within the it blocks of the last few tests and when I check the portfolio.initial_dollar_value it repeatedly changes the value.
[1] pry(#<RSpec::ExampleGroups::PortStock::Methods>)> portfolio
=> #<Portfolio:0x00007fcdc5c5db28
id: 14,
user_id: 7,
current_dollar_value: 2864770.0,
percent_change: 75.02,
created_at: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 00:36:24 UTC +00:00,
updated_at: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 00:36:24 UTC +00:00,
num_winners: 2,
num_losers: 7,
initial_dollar_value: 860679.0,
dollar_change: 92865.0>
[2] pry(#<RSpec::ExampleGroups::PortStock::Methods>)> port_stock_1.portfolio
=> #<Portfolio:0x00007fcdc5c5db28
id: 14,
user_id: 7,
current_dollar_value: 150.0,
percent_change: -85.0,
created_at: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 00:36:24 UTC +00:00,
updated_at: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 00:36:42 UTC +00:00,
num_winners: 0,
num_losers: 1,
initial_dollar_value: 1000.0,
dollar_change: -850.0>
[3] pry(#<RSpec::ExampleGroups::PortStock::Methods>)> portfolio
=> #<Portfolio:0x00007fcdc5c5db28
id: 14,
user_id: 7,
current_dollar_value: 150.0,
percent_change: -85.0,
created_at: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 00:36:24 UTC +00:00,
updated_at: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 00:36:42 UTC +00:00,
num_winners: 0,
num_losers: 1,
initial_dollar_value: 1000.0,
dollar_change: -850.0>
[4] pry(#<RSpec::ExampleGroups::PortStock::Methods>)> portfolio
=> #<Portfolio:0x00007fcdc5c5db28
id: 14,
user_id: 7,
current_dollar_value: 150.0,
percent_change: -85.0,
created_at: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 00:36:24 UTC +00:00,
updated_at: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 00:36:42 UTC +00:00,
num_winners: 0,
num_losers: 1,
initial_dollar_value: 1000.0,
dollar_change: -850.0>
[5] pry(#<RSpec::ExampleGroups::PortStock::Methods>)>
I don't understand why.
Thoughts?
Edit 1
This is portfolio.rb Factory:
FactoryBot.define do
factory :portfolio do
user
current_dollar_value { Faker::Number.number(7) }
percent_change { Faker::Number.decimal(2) }
num_winners { Faker::Number.number(1) }
num_losers { Faker::Number.number(1) }
initial_dollar_value { Faker::Number.number(6) }
dollar_change { Faker::Number.number(5) }
end
end
Edit 2
There is a callback on my port_stock.rb model that triggers methods related to portfolio_initial_dollar_value:
after_save :calculate_portfolio_initial_dollar_value
Also other callbacks that impact other aspects of the portfolio:
after_save :update_portfolio_current_dollar_value
after_save :update_portfolio_initial_dollar_value, if: (:total_spend_previously_changed? || :volume_previously_changed?)
def update_portfolio_current_dollar_value
self.portfolio.current_dollar_value = self.portfolio.port_stocks.open.map(&:current_value).sum
self.portfolio.save!
end
def update_portfolio_initial_dollar_value
self.portfolio.initial_dollar_value = self.portfolio.port_stocks.open.map { |ps| ps.volume * ps.transaction_price }.sum
self.portfolio.save!
end
Edit 3
For the full version both the model (port_stock.rb) & spec (port_stock_spec.rb) files, check out this gist. I didn't want to pollute SO with that full dump.
As #grzekos point out you never call stock or port_stock_1 during the execution of it "should accurately calculate the portfolio's initial_dollar_value" test.
Why? Because you used let to setup/create the test objects.
If you want to always setup/create stock, portfolio and port_stock_1 you can either use let! (RSpec documentation) or use a before block like this:
let(:stock) { create(:stock, price: 10.00) }
let(:portfolio) { create(:portfolio) }
let(:port_stock_1) { create(:port_stock, stock: stock, portfolio: portfolio, transaction_price: stock.price, action: :buy, volume: 100) }
before do
stock
portfolio
port_stock_1
end
Why do you see different numbers during debuging with pry?
In your first test you called the portfolio object, which was created with FactoryBot. The Factory asinged a random 6 digit number to the initial_dollar_value atttribute via Faker::Number.number(6).
In your second test you called port_stock_1.portfolio. Now the block of let(:port_stock_1) gets evaluated. This creates a PortStock object, which in its after_save method updates the initial_dollar_value of portfolio.
All subsequet calls of portfolio or port_stock_1.portfolio do not change the value of initial_dollar_value anymore.
Ok, so the failing test is:
it "should accurately calculate the portfolio's initial_dollar_value" do
expect(portfolio.initial_dollar_value).to eql 1000.00
end
Here I can see that you create the portfolio object and the initial_dollar_value is set (in the factory) to Faker::Number.number(6). Why do you expect it to be equal to 1000.00?
The stock or the port_stock_1 objects are never created when you run this particular test. Quoting the Rspec let documentation
Use let to define a memoized helper method. The value will be cached across
multiple calls in the same example but not across examples.
Note that let is lazy-evaluated: it is not evaluated until the first time
the method it defines is invoked.
I am working on a problem where I have to pass an rpsec test. The problem is that the method is using the same name as a built in ruby method .count
given that I cannot change the rspec test, is it possible to override .count to behave differently? if not, is there a better way to get around this?
here is the rspec test I am trying to pass
subject = FinancialSummary.one_day(user: user, currency: :usd)
expect(subject.count(:deposit)).to eq(2)
my code:
class FinancialSummary
def self.one_day(user: user, currency: currency)
one_day_range = Date.today.beginning_of_day..Date.today.end_of_day
find_transaction(user.id, currency).where(created_at: one_day_range)
end
def self.find_transaction(user_id, currency)
Transaction.where(user_id: user_id,
amount_currency: currency.to_s.upcase
)
end
end
output:
[#<Transaction:0x00007f9b39c2e9b8
id: 1,
user_id: 1,
amount_cents: 1,
amount_currency: "USD",
category: "deposit",
created_at: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 18:46:53 UTC +00:00,
updated_at: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 18:46:53 UTC +00:00>,
#<Transaction:0x00007f9b3d0dbc38
id: 2,
user_id: 1,
amount_cents: 2000,
amount_currency: "USD",
category: "deposit",
created_at: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 18:47:43 UTC +00:00,
updated_at: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 18:47:43 UTC +00:00>,
#<Transaction:0x00007f9b3d0b3fa8
id: 7,
user_id: 1,
amount_cents: 1200,
amount_currency: "USD",
category: "withdraw",
created_at: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 02:22:42 UTC +00:00,
updated_at: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 18:48:20 UTC +00:00>]
it is printing out, what I believe to be the correct information, up until the test attempts to count the transactions by their category: 'deposit'. Then I get this error message:
ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: SQLite3::SQLException: no such column: deposit: SELECT COUNT(deposit) FROM "transactions" WHERE "transactions"."user_id" = ? AND "transactions"."amount_currency" = ?
EDITED FOR MORE INFO
Some Assumptions Were Made in the Writing of this answer and modifications may be made based on updated specifications
Overriding count is a bad idea because others who view or use your code will have no idea that this is not the count they know and understand.
Instead consider creating a scope for this like
class FinancialSummary < ApplicationRecord
scope :one_day, ->(user:,currency:) { where(user: user, currency: currency) } #clearly already a scope
scope :transaction_type, ->(transaction_type:) { where(category: transaction_type) }
end
then the test becomes
subject = FinancialSummary.one_day(user: user, currency: :usd)
expect(subject.transaction_type(:deposit).count).to eq(2)
SQL now becomes:
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM
"transactions"
WHERE
"transactions"."user_id" = ?
AND "transactions"."amount_currency" = "usd"
AND "transactions"."category" = "deposit"
Still very understandable and easy to read without the need to destroy the count method we clearly just used.
It's not clear what object the count message is being sent to because I don't know what FinancialSummary.one_day(user: user, currency: :usd) returns, but it seems like you are saying count is a method on whatever it returns, that you can't change. What does FinancialSummary.one_day(user: user, currency: :usd).class return?
Perhaps one solution would be to alias it on that object by adding alias_method :count, :account_count and then in your test calling expect(subject.account_count(:deposit)).to eq(2)
It would be easier if you could post the FinancialSummary#one_day method in your question.
I'm writing a simple class to parse strings into relative dates.
module RelativeDate
class InvalidString < StandardError; end
class Parser
REGEX = /([0-9]+)_(day|week|month|year)_(ago|from_now)/
def self.to_time(value)
if captures = REGEX.match(value)
captures[1].to_i.send(captures[2]).send(captures[3])
else
raise InvalidString, "#{value} could not be parsed"
end
end
end
end
The code seems to work fine.
Now when I try my specs I get a time difference only in year and month
require 'spec_helper'
describe RelativeDate::Parser do
describe "#to_time" do
before do
Timecop.freeze
end
['day','week','month','year'].each do |type|
it "should parse #{type} correctly" do
RelativeDate::Parser.to_time("2_#{type}_ago").should == 2.send(type).ago
RelativeDate::Parser.to_time("2_#{type}_from_now").should == 2.send(type).from_now
end
end
after do
Timecop.return
end
end
end
Output
..FF
Failures:
1) RelativeDate::Parser#to_time should parse year correctly
Failure/Error: RelativeDate::Parser.to_time("2_#{type}_ago").should == 2.send(type).ago
expected: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 22:40:14 UTC +00:00
got: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:40:14 UTC +00:00 (using ==)
Diff:
## -1,2 +1,2 ##
-Wed, 29 Aug 2012 22:40:14 UTC +00:00
+Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:40:14 UTC +00:00
# ./spec/lib/relative_date/parser_spec.rb:11:in `(root)'
2) RelativeDate::Parser#to_time should parse month correctly
Failure/Error: RelativeDate::Parser.to_time("2_#{type}_ago").should == 2.send(type).ago
expected: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 22:40:14 UTC +00:00
got: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 22:40:14 UTC +00:00 (using ==)
Diff:
## -1,2 +1,2 ##
-Sun, 29 Jun 2014 22:40:14 UTC +00:00
+Mon, 30 Jun 2014 22:40:14 UTC +00:00
# ./spec/lib/relative_date/parser_spec.rb:11:in `(root)'
Finished in 0.146 seconds
4 examples, 2 failures
Failed examples:
rspec ./spec/lib/relative_date/parser_spec.rb:10 # RelativeDate::Parser#to_time should parse year correctly
rspec ./spec/lib/relative_date/parser_spec.rb:10 # RelativeDate::Parser#to_time should parse month correctly
The first one seems like a time zone issue but the other one is even a day apart? I'm really clueless on this one.
This is a fascinating problem!
First, this has nothing to do with Timecop or RSpec. The problem can be reproduced in the Rails console, as follows:
2.0.0-p247 :001 > 2.months.ago
=> Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:46:19 UTC +00:00
2.0.0-p247 :002 > 2.months.send(:ago)
DEPRECATION WARNING: Calling #ago or #until on a number (e.g. 5.ago) is deprecated and will be removed in the future, use 5.seconds.ago instead. (called from irb_binding at (irb):2)
=> Wed, 02 Jul 2014 20:46:27 UTC +00:00
[Note: This answer uses the example of months, but the same is true for the alias month as well as year and years.]
Rails adds the month method to the Integer class, returning an ActiveSupport::Duration object, which is a "proxy object" containing a method_missing method which redirects any calls to the method_missing method of the "value" it is serving as a proxy for.
When you call ago directly, it's handled by the ago method in the Duration class itself. When you try to invoke ago via send, however, send is not defined in Duration and is not defined in the BasicObject that all proxy objects inherit from, so the method_missing method of Rails' Duration is invoked which in turn calls send on the integer "value" of the proxy, resulting in the invocation of ago in Numeric. In your case, this results in a change of date equal to 2*30 days.
The only methods you have to work with are those defined by Duration itself and those defined by BasicObject. The latter are as follows:
2.0.0-p247 :023 > BasicObject.instance_methods
=> [:==, :equal?, :!, :!=, :instance_eval, :instance_exec, :__send__, :__id__]
In addition to the instance_eval you discovered, you can use __send__.
Here's the definition of method_missing from duration.rb
def method_missing(method, *args, &block) #:nodoc:
value.send(method, *args, &block)
end
value in this case refers to the number of seconds in the Duration object. If you redefine method_missing to special case ago, you can get your test to pass. Or you can alias send to __send__ as follows:
class ActiveSupport::Duration
alias send __send__
end
Here's another example of how this method_missing method from Duration works:
macbookair1:so1 palfvin$ rails c
Loading development environment (Rails 4.1.1)
irb: warn: can't alias context from irb_context.
2.0.0-p247 :001 > class ActiveSupport::Duration
2.0.0-p247 :002?> def foo
2.0.0-p247 :003?> 'foobar'
2.0.0-p247 :004?> end
2.0.0-p247 :005?> end
=> nil
2.0.0-p247 :006 > 2.months.foo
=> "foobar"
2.0.0-p247 :007 > 2.months.respond_to?(:foo)
=> false
2.0.0-p247 :008 >
You can call the newly defined foo directly, but because BasicObject doesn't implement respond_to?, you can't "test" that the method is defined there. For the same reason, method(:ago) on a Duration object returns #<Method: Fixnum(Numeric)#ago> because that's the ago method defined on value.
I'm trying to write test that compare some dates. So far i have 2 tests, one of them works as intended, but the other one fails because doesnt/not correctly compare dates.
Here is my code:
def self.has_expired?(card, start_month, start_year, annually)
card_date = Date.new(card.year, card.month, -1)
billing_date = Date.new(start_year, start_month, -1)
if !annually
p '--------'
p card_date
p billing_date
card_date > billing_date
else
#return false
end
end
creditcard object
creditcard = ActiveMerchant::Billing::CreditCard.new(
:number => 1234567890123456
:month => 01,
:year => 13,
:first_name => 'John',
:last_name => 'Doe',
:verification_value => 132,
:brand => 'visa'
)
Here is output of p's
First block works as intended.
"--------"
Tue, 31 Jan 0013
Thu, 28 Feb 2013
false
Second block fails, expecting true, but got false
."--------"
Tue, 31 Jan 0013
Fri, 30 Nov 2012
false
Here is my rspec code
describe CreditCard do
context 'card_expired' do
it 'should return false with args passed to method (02month, 13 year, annually==false)' do
CreditCard.has_expired?(creditcard, 02, 2013, false).should == false
end
it 'should return true with args passed to method (11month, 12 year, annually==false)' do
CreditCard.has_expired?(creditcard, 11, 2012, false).should == true
end
end
end
in irb it works as charm, returning correct value(true/false)
I think the problem is in your logic. A card is expired when the expiration date is before the billing date, thus when
card_date < billing_date # expired
and not when
card_date > billing_date # valid
Also try puting in the full 2013 and see if that helps if it keeps breaking
:year => 2013,
You're also missing a comma after this line (probably a copy/paste error) :number => 1234567890123456
I have written a task that will run periodically to recalculate and update the information in a particular column of an Active Record model. Frequently, the newly calculated object (it's a json-encoded hash, if that matters) will be the same as the existing objects. In such cases, I suspect that it may be more efficient to check for this identity and abort the save rather than saving. Thus, I am considering using self.save! if changed? rather than merely self.save!. My questions are:
Does Active Record do this automatically, so that these two commands are actually equivalent?
If, as I suspect, it does not, am I likely to save CPU time by adding the if changed? condition?
(I apologize if I've misused some terminology here. I'm new to the game.)
No db query is made, here is a simple example using Rails 3.1.1 in console:
> s = Shop.first
=> #<Shop id: 1, name: "Ben", address: "paris", latitude:
> 48.856614, longitude: 2.3522219, gmaps: true, created_at: "2011-10-13 13:17:24", updated_at: "2011-10-13 13:17:24"> ruby-1.9.2-p290 :003 >
> s.name = "Ben" => "Ben"
> s.save
=> true
> s.updated_at
=> Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:17:24 UTC +00:00
> s.update_attribute(:name, "Ben")
=> true
> s.updated_at
=> Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:17:24 UTC +00:00
> s.update_attributes({:name => "Ben"})
=> true
> s.updated_at
=> Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:17:24 UTC +00:00
> s.name = "Ben"
=> "Ben"
> s.save!
> s.updated_at
=> Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:17:24 UTC +00:00
Edit:
rails profiler 's = Shop.first; s.name = "Ben"; s.save;' 's = Shop.first; s.name =
Loaded suite script/rails
Started
ProfilerTest#test_s_shop_first_s_name_ben_s_save (78 ms warmup)
process_time: 5 ms
ProfilerTest#test_s_shop_first_s_name_ben_s_save_if_s_changed (1 ms warmup)
process_time: 2 ms
Finished in 2.597531 seconds.
So it's faster with if changed?.
I know this is a very old post at this point... but it is also worth noting that callbacks like before_save would always be called even if the database will not be updated by the save!. So, calling save! instead of save! if changed? could take considerably longer if the callbacks are doing anything of consequence (including additional database queries).