I have a class with 20 rspec tests, and the result should be the exact same whether my main logic goes through a feature flag or not.
I am wondering what the best way to test this suite so that on Jenkins it can test both directions?
I want to avoid having to copy paste the 20 tests again, just to add another line like:
featureFlag.enabled = True
Right before the test logic.
Is this possible? Thanks
It depends which test framework you use? RSpec? Minitest?
In RSpec you could for instance use a shared example
RSpec.shared_examples "some example" do |flag|
before do
featureFlag.enabled = flag
end
it "works with feature flag '#{flag}'" do
expect(something).to be true
end
end
RSpec.describe SomeClass do
include_examples "some example", true
include_examples "some example", false
end
In Minitest you can just use a module.
https://relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-core/docs/example-groups/shared-examples
trying to upgrade to Rails 4.2, using delayed_job_active_record. I've not set the delayed_job backend for test environment as thought that way jobs would execute straight away.
I'm trying to test the new 'deliver_later' method with RSpec, but I'm not sure how.
Old controller code:
ServiceMailer.delay.new_user(#user)
New controller code:
ServiceMailer.new_user(#user).deliver_later
I USED to test it like so:
expect(ServiceMailer).to receive(:new_user).with(#user).and_return(double("mailer", :deliver => true))
Now I get errors using that. (Double "mailer" received unexpected message :deliver_later with (no args))
Just
expect(ServiceMailer).to receive(:new_user)
fails too with 'undefined method `deliver_later' for nil:NilClass'
I've tried some examples that allow you to see if jobs are enqueued using test_helper in ActiveJob but I haven't managed to test that the correct job is queued.
expect(enqueued_jobs.size).to eq(1)
This passes if the test_helper is included, but it doesn't allow me to check it is the correct email that is being sent.
What I want to do is:
test that the correct email is queued (or executed straight away in test env)
with the correct parameters (#user)
Any ideas??
thanks
If I understand you correctly, you could do:
message_delivery = instance_double(ActionMailer::MessageDelivery)
expect(ServiceMailer).to receive(:new_user).with(#user).and_return(message_delivery)
allow(message_delivery).to receive(:deliver_later)
The key thing is that you need to somehow provide a double for deliver_later.
Using ActiveJob and rspec-rails 3.4+, you could use have_enqueued_job like this:
expect {
YourMailer.your_method.deliver_later
# or any other method that eventually would trigger mail enqueuing
}.to(
have_enqueued_job.on_queue('mailers').with(
# `with` isn't mandatory, but it will help if you want to make sure is
# the correct enqueued mail.
'YourMailer', 'your_method', 'deliver_now', any_param_you_want_to_check
)
)
also double check in config/environments/test.rb you have:
config.action_mailer.delivery_method = :test
config.active_job.queue_adapter = :test
Another option would be to run inline jobs:
config.active_job.queue_adapter = :inline
But keep in mind this would affect the overall performance of your test suite, as all your jobs will run as soon as they're enqueued.
If you find this question but are using ActiveJob rather than simply DelayedJob on its own, and are using Rails 5, I recommend configuring ActionMailer in config/environments/test.rb:
config.active_job.queue_adapter = :inline
(this was the default behavior prior to Rails 5)
I will add my answer because none of the others was good enough for me:
1) There is no need to mock the Mailer: Rails basically does that already for you.
2) There is no need to really trigger the creation of the email: this will consume time and slow down your test!
That's why in environments/test.rb you should have the following options set:
config.action_mailer.delivery_method = :test
config.active_job.queue_adapter = :test
Again: don't deliver your emails using deliver_now but always use deliver_later. That prevents your users from waiting for the effective delivering of the email. If you don't have sidekiq, sucker_punch, or any other in production, simply use config.active_job.queue_adapter = :async. And either async or inline for development environment.
Given the following configuration for the testing environment, you emails will always be enqueued and never executed for delivery: this prevents your from mocking them and you can check that they are enqueued correctly.
In you tests, always split the test in two:
1) One unit test to check that the email is enqueued correctly and with the correct parameters
2) One unit test for the mail to check that the subject, sender, receiver and content are correct.
Given the following scenario:
class User
after_update :send_email
def send_email
ReportMailer.update_mail(id).deliver_later
end
end
Write a test to check the email is enqueued correctly:
include ActiveJob::TestHelper
expect { user.update(name: 'Hello') }.to have_enqueued_job(ActionMailer::DeliveryJob).with('ReportMailer', 'update_mail', 'deliver_now', user.id)
and write a separate test for your email
Rspec.describe ReportMailer do
describe '#update_email' do
subject(:mailer) { described_class.update_email(user.id) }
it { expect(mailer.subject).to eq 'whatever' }
...
end
end
You have tested exactly that your email has been enqueued and not a generic job.
Your test is fast
You needed no mocking
When you write a system test, feel free to decide if you want to really deliver emails there, since speed doesn't matter that much anymore. I personally like to configure the following:
RSpec.configure do |config|
config.around(:each, :mailer) do |example|
perform_enqueued_jobs do
example.run
end
end
end
and assign the :mailer attribute to the tests were I want to actually send emails.
For more about how to correctly configure your email in Rails read this article: https://medium.com/#coorasse/the-correct-emails-configuration-in-rails-c1d8418c0bfd
Add this:
# spec/support/message_delivery.rb
class ActionMailer::MessageDelivery
def deliver_later
deliver_now
end
end
Reference: http://mrlab.sk/testing-email-delivery-with-deliver-later.html
A nicer solution (than monkeypatching deliver_later) is:
require 'spec_helper'
include ActiveJob::TestHelper
describe YourObject do
around { |example| perform_enqueued_jobs(&example) }
it "sends an email" do
expect { something_that.sends_an_email }.to change(ActionMailer::Base.deliveries, :length)
end
end
The around { |example| perform_enqueued_jobs(&example) } ensures that background tasks are run before checking the test values.
I came with the same doubt and resolved in a less verbose (single line) way inspired by this answer
expect(ServiceMailer).to receive_message_chain(:new_user, :deliver_later).with(#user).with(no_args)
Note that the last with(no_args) is essential.
But, if you don't bother if deliver_later is being called, just do:
expect(ServiceMailer).to expect(:new_user).with(#user).and_call_original
A simple way is:
expect(ServiceMailer).to(
receive(:new_user).with(#user).and_call_original
)
# subject
This answer is for Rails Test, not for rspec...
If you are using delivery_later like this:
# app/controllers/users_controller.rb
class UsersController < ApplicationController
…
def create
…
# Yes, Ruby 2.0+ keyword arguments are preferred
UserMailer.welcome_email(user: #user).deliver_later
end
end
You can check in your test if the email has been added to the queue:
# test/controllers/users_controller_test.rb
require 'test_helper'
class UsersControllerTest < ActionController::TestCase
…
test 'email is enqueued to be delivered later' do
assert_enqueued_jobs 1 do
post :create, {…}
end
end
end
If you do this though, you’ll surprised by the failing test that tells you assert_enqueued_jobs is not defined for us to use.
This is because our test inherits from ActionController::TestCase which, at the time of writing, does not include ActiveJob::TestHelper.
But we can quickly fix this:
# test/test_helper.rb
class ActionController::TestCase
include ActiveJob::TestHelper
…
end
Reference:
https://www.engineyard.com/blog/testing-async-emails-rails-42
For recent Googlers:
allow(YourMailer).to receive(:mailer_method).and_call_original
expect(YourMailer).to have_received(:mailer_method)
I think one of the better ways to test this is to check the status of job alongside the basic response json checks like:
expect(ActionMailer::MailDeliveryJob).to have_been_enqueued.on_queue('mailers').with('mailer_name', 'mailer_method', 'delivery_now', { :params => {}, :args=>[] } )
I have come here looking for an answer for a complete testing, so, not just asking if there is one mail waiting to be sent, in addition, for its recipient, subject...etc
I have a solution, than comes from here, but with a little change:
As it says, the curial part is
mail = perform_enqueued_jobs { ActionMailer::DeliveryJob.perform_now(*enqueued_jobs.first[:args]) }
The problem is that the parameters than mailer receives, in this case, is different from the parameters than receives in production, in production, if the first parameter is a Model, now in testing will receive a hash, so will crash
enqueued_jobs.first[:args]
["UserMailer", "welcome_email", "deliver_now", {"_aj_globalid"=>"gid://forjartistica/User/1"}]
So, if we call the mailer as UserMailer.welcome_email(#user).deliver_later the mailer receives in production a User, but in testing will receive {"_aj_globalid"=>"gid://forjartistica/User/1"}
All comments will be appreciate,
The less painful solution I have found is changing the way that I call the mailers, passing, the model's id and not the model:
UserMailer.welcome_email(#user.id).deliver_later
This answer is a little bit different, but may help in cases like a new change in the rails API, or a change in the way you want to deliver (like use deliver_now instead of deliver_later).
What I do most of the time is to pass a mailer as a dependency to the method that I am testing, but I don't pass an mailer from rails, I instead pass an object that will do the the things in the "way that I want"...
For example if I want to check that I am sending the right mail after the registration of a user... I could do...
class DummyMailer
def self.send_welcome_message(user)
end
end
it "sends a welcome email" do
allow(store).to receive(:create).and_return(user)
expect(mailer).to receive(:send_welcome_message).with(user)
register_user(params, store, mailer)
end
And then in the controller where I will be calling that method, I would write the "real" implementation of that mailer...
class RegistrationsController < ApplicationController
def create
Registrations.register_user(params[:user], User, Mailer)
# ...
end
class Mailer
def self.send_welcome_message(user)
ServiceMailer.new_user(user).deliver_later
end
end
end
In this way I feel that I am testing that I am sending the right message, to the right object, with the right data (arguments). And I am just in need of creating a very simple object that has no logic, just the responsibility of knowing how ActionMailer wants to be called.
I prefer to do this because I prefer to have more control over the dependencies I have. This is form me an example of the "Dependency inversion principle".
I am not sure if it is your taste, but is another way to solve the problem =).
I am new to rspec and we are using it for test automation for our application. I have three hooks that are reused in every rspec test. The hooks call a number modules that launch are used to launch & log into the site plus some other usable methods.
I have created a hooks.rb file and placed those hooks in there and call it within the rspec test but now I have lost the ability to call the instance variables that relate to the methods I need. I could globalize the variables but I have read its not a good idea to do so.
Does anyone have any insight on what the best approach would be?
I am including code example.
before(:all) do
< this before hook include making files available and initialization browser >
** very section
end
after(:all) do
#client.quit
end
before(:each) do
#page.goto
end
** I have to include this in every spec file and would not like to have to. One call to the location so it is included for any spec.
Thank you,
Joe
So, my spec_helper.rb consist of the following information:
RSpec.configure do |config|
config.before(:all) do
require_relative '../../lib/env'
filedir = File.expand_path('../../etc',File.dirname(__FILE__))
config = Matr::Configuration.new("#{filedir}/config.yaml", ENV["M_ENV"] || "development")
#client = config.construct_selenium_driver "Insight: Login"
#client.window.resize_to(1280,720)
#page = Matr::Pages::Insight::LoginPage.new(#client)
#account_page = Matr::Pages::Insight::InsightPage.new(#client)
#choose_account = Matr::Pages::Insight::ChooseAccount.new(#client)
#logout = Matr::Pages::Insight::LogOut.new(#client)
#nav_bar = Matr::Pages::Insight::NavBar.new(#client)
#db = Matr::Models::DB.new
#manage_campaigns = Matr::Pages::Insight::ManageCampaignsPage.new(#client)
end
end
You can define hooks for all examples when you configure rspec in your spec_helper.rb
For example you could do
RSpec.configure do |config|
config.before(:all) do
...
end
end
If you don't actually need this for all specs then you can use rspec's metadata filters. For example, to apply to all of the request specs you'd do
config.before(:all, type: :request) do
...
end
To only run against the specs with type :request. You can also make up your own metadata keys, so if you did
config.before(:all, browser: true) do
...
end
Then that before(:all) would run for example groups created in this way:
describe "something", browser: true do
...
end
Have you considered using shared examples? Generally, you should not have to roll your own approach to creating reusable modules.
I have a test that looks like this:
class PageTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase
describe "test" do
test "should not save without attributes" do
page = Page.new
assert !page.save
end
end
end
When running the tests, I get 0 tests, 0 assertions. If I remove the describe "test" do, I get the 1 test, 1 assertions. So I have the feeling that the describe "..." do is actually making the test disappear.
What is going on here? What am I missing?
Looks like you're mixing up minitest specs and ActiveSupport::TestCase. If you check the rails guides on testing the test method is explained but it's not used with describe.
Rails adds a test method that takes a test name and a block. It
generates a normal MiniTest::Unit test with method names prefixed with
test_. So,
test "the truth" do
assert true
end
acts as if you had written
def test_the_truth
assert true
end
The describe syntax is explained in the minitest docs under the spec section and is used with it (and not test). Like so:
describe "when asked about cheeseburgers" do
it "must respond positively" do
#meme.i_can_has_cheezburger?.must_equal "OHAI!"
end
end
I would like to implement the method User.calculate_hashed_password. I'm trying to use the Shoulda testing library which works with Rails's built-in testing tools, so an answer related to Test::Unit would be just as good as one related to Shoulda (I think).
I'm trying to figure out what I need to test and how I should test it. My initial idea is to do something like...
class UserTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase
should 'Return a hashed password'
assert_not_nil User.calculate_hashed_password
end
end
Is this the right way to do it?
You don't need to test that the method exists, just that the method behaves correctly. Say something like this:
class UserTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase
setup do
#user = User.new
end
should 'Calculate the hashed password correctly'
#user.password = "password"
#user.hashed_password = "xxxxx" # Manually calculate it
end
end
(I don't use shoulda, so excuse any glaring syntax errors.)
That test will fail if the method doesn't exist.
I agree with Otto; but as dylanfm noted, I use #respond_to to test for associations in RSpec.
it "should know about associated Projects" do
#user.should respond_to(:projects)
end
Maybe use respond_to?
You should check out Object#respond_to? and Object#try in newer versions of Rails. If you're new to testing in general, definitely read through this excellent guide on testing in Rails.