I have simple controller:
class CreditLogsController < BaseController
def show
#account = Account.find_by_email(Base64.urlsafe_decode64(params[:id]))
end
end
and here is the spec for it:
require 'rails_helper'
describe CreditLogsController, type: :controller do
describe 'GET #show' do
it 'responds with 200' do
create(:account)
get :show, params: {id: Base64.urlsafe_encode64('tes1#test.com')}, format: :html
puts "############# #{controller.instance_variable_get(:account)}"
expect(assigns(:account)).to eql('tes1#test.com')
end
end
end
The problems is that account in spec is always nil, in coverage file code from controller which assigns value to #account is showed as not covered and controller.instance_variable_get(:account) raises an error:
`account' is not allowed as an instance variable name.
I have similar code in other spec and is working ok, so what am I doing wrong?
As the error indicates, that's the wrong name for an instance variable. They must start with #, and so do the symbols and strings describing them.
You must use:
controller.instance_variable_get(:#account)
or
controller.instance_variable_get('#account')
The rest of your test (expect(assigns(:account))...) will not be reached, as instance_variable_get(:account) will raise a NameError exception.
Related
I've been trying to stub a private module method for the whole day now but with not progress.
Here is a snippet of my application controller class
class ApplicationController < ActionController::Base
include Cesid::Application
end
Cesid > Application.rb
module Cesid
module Application
extend ActiveSupport::Concern
included do
before_action :track_marketing_suite_cesid, only: [:new]
end
private
def track_marketing_suite_cesid
return unless id_token_available?
## #cesid_auth = Auth.new(#id_token)
#cesid_auth = Auth.new(id_token)
return unless #cesid_auth.present? && #cesid_auth.valid?
#cesid_admin = Admin.where(email: #cesid_auth.email).first_or_initialize
end
def id_token_available?
## #id_token.present?
id_token.present?
end
def id_token
#id_token ||= id_token_param
end
def id_token_param
cookies[:id_token]
end
end
end
Now, I'm trying to create a simple unit test for the method
id_token_available?
And I am just trying to set the id_token_param to a random value.
I've tried using this code as stated Is there a way to stub a method of an included module with Rspec?
allow_any_instance_of(Cesid).to receive(:id_token_param).and_return('hello')
but I just get this error
NoMethodError:
undefined method `allow_any_instance_of' for #<RSpec::ExampleGroups::CesidApplication::CesidAuthorizations::GetCesidApplication:0x00007fa3d200c1c0> Did you mean? allow_mass_assignment_of
Rspec file
require 'rails_helper'
describe Cesid::Application, :type => :controller do
describe 'cesid application' do
before do
allow_any_instance_of(ApplicationController).to receive(:id_token_param).and_return('hello')
end
it 'returns true if the id_token is present' do
expect(Cesid::Application.send('id_token_available?')).to eql(true)
end
end
end
Rspec version
3.5.4
This is honestly starting to drive me crazy
I see three issues:
You call allow_any_instance_of in a context in which it is not defined. allow_any_instance_of can be used in before blocks. I need to see your RSpec code to be more specific.
Actually your code is called on the ApplicationController, not on the module, therefore you need to change your stub to
allow_any_instance_of(ApplicationController).to receive(:id_token_param).and_return('hello')
Currently id_token_param will not be called at all, because id_token_available? checks the instance variable and not the return value of the id_token method that calls the id_token_param. Just change the id_token_available? to:
def id_token_available?
id_token.present?
end
There's a much better way of going about this test. The type: :controller metadata on your spec gives you an anonymous controller instance to work with.
Here's an example of how you could write this to actually test that the before_action from your module is used:
describe Cesid::Application, type: :controller do
controller(ApplicationController) do
def new
render plain: 'Hello'
end
end
describe 'cesid before_action' do
before(:each) do
routes.draw { get 'new' => 'anonymous#new' }
cookies[:id_token] = id_token
allow(Auth).to receive(:new).with(id_token)
.and_return(instance_double(Auth, valid?: false))
get :new
end
context 'when id token is available' do
let(:id_token) { 'hello' }
it 'sets #cesid_auth' do
expect(assigns(:cesid_auth)).to be_present
end
end
context 'when id token is unavailable' do
let(:id_token) { '' }
it 'does not set #cesid_auth' do
expect(assigns(:cesid_auth)).to be_nil
end
end
end
end
I am writing a controller spec to verify this private method and I get the error Module::DelegationError: ActionController::RackDelegation but I am lost as how to fix this. The best example I have found has been http://owowthathurts.blogspot.com/2013/08/rspec-response-delegation-error-fix.html.
How can I get the unverified spec to pass? I want to make sure the 401 is returned.
Method
def validate_api_request
return four_oh_one unless api_request_verified?(request)
end
Current Spec
describe Api::ApiController, type: :controller do
describe '#validate_api_request' do
it 'verified' do
allow_any_instance_of(described_class).to receive(:api_request_verified?).and_return(true)
expect(subject.send(:validate_api_request)).to be_nil
end
it 'unverified' do
allow_any_instance_of(described_class).to receive(:api_request_verified?).and_return(false)
allow(controller).to receive(:redirect_to)
binding.pry
end
end
end
I'm using Rails 4.
If anyone is working on a similar issue writing controller specs, here is how I solved this based on these 2 guides: http://codegur.com/22603728/test-user-authentication-with-rspec and https://gayleforce.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/testing-rails-before_filter-method/.
describe Api::ApiController, type: :controller do
describe '#validate_api_request' do
controller(Api::ApiController) do
before_filter :validate_api_request
def fake
render text: 'TESTME'
end
end
before do
routes.draw { get 'fake', to: 'api/api#fake' }
end
it 'verified' do
allow_any_instance_of(described_class).to receive(:api_request_verified?).and_return(true)
expect(subject.send(:validate_api_request)).to be_nil
end
it 'unverified' do
allow_any_instance_of(described_class).to receive(:api_request_verified?).and_return(false)
get 'fake'
expect(response.status).to be(401)
end
end
end
My app's view specs started failing because of a change we introduced to version control and I'm trying to debug.
Essentially, we had a ton of view specs that always passed, and now many, but not all, of them produce ActionController::UnknownFormat errors in the controller. Here is an example of a method that is blowing up:
def show
#user = current_user
FooCountItem.increment_requests
respond_to do |format|
format.html
format.json { render json: #foo }
end
end
Here's an example of spec that just began to fail:
describe "show.html.erb", type: :feature do
context "as admin" do
let!(:foo) { FactoryGirl.create(:foo) }
let!(:user) { FactoryGirl.create(:admin_user) }
before :each do
page.set_rack_session(user_id: user.id)
visit data_service_path(foo.id)
end
it "displays the foo's name" do
expect(page).to have_content(foo.name)
end
end
end
How is it possible that html is not the expected response? How could the controller react as if it has to produce a different format?
Thanks.
Updated: I'm also seeing NoMethodError: undefined method 'symbolize_keys' for "":String on some lines that are doing the controller requests from the controller_specs. I have no changes in spec_helper.rb when compared to working version of the test suite.
If I add format: :html to a call in the controller spec, it passes. I must have the app globally configured to respond to :js.
I've recently learned how to stub in rspec and found that some benefits of it are we can decouple the code (eg. controller and model), more efficient test execution (eg. stubbing database call).
However I figured that if we stub, the code can be tightly tied to a particular implementation which therefore sacrifice the way we refactor the code later.
Example:
UsersController
# /app/controllers/users_controller.rb
class UsersController < ApplicationController
def create
User.create(name: params[:name])
end
end
Controller spec
# /spec/controllers/users_controller_spec.rb
RSpec.describe UsersController, :type => :controller do
describe "POST 'create'" do
it 'saves new user' do
expect(User).to receive(:create)
post :create, :name => "abc"
end
end
end
By doing that didn't I just limit the implementation to only using User.create? So later if I change the code my test will fail even though the purpose of both code is the same which is to save the new user to database
# /app/controllers/users_controller.rb
class UsersController < ApplicationController
def create
#user = User.new
#user.name = params[:name]
#user.save!
end
end
Whereas if I test the controller without stubbing, I can create a real record and later check against the record in the database. As long as the controller is able to save the user Like so
RSpec.describe UsersController, :type => :controller do
describe "POST 'create'" do
it 'saves new user' do
post :create, :name => "abc"
user = User.first
expect(user.name).to eql("abc")
end
end
end
Really sorry if the codes don't look right or have errors, I didn't check the code but you get my point.
So my question is, can we mock/stub without having to be tied to a particular implementation? If so, would you please throw me an example in rspec
You should use mocking and stubbing to simulate services external to the code, which it uses, but you are not interested in them running in your test.
For example, say your code is using the twitter gem:
status = client.status(my_client)
In your test, you don't really want your code to go to twitter API and get your bogus client's status! Instead you stub that method:
expect(client).to receive(:status).with(my_client).and_return("this is my status!")
Now you can safely check your code, with deterministic, short running results!
This is one use case where stubs and mocks are useful, there are more. Of course, like any other tool, they may be abused, and cause pain later on.
Internally create calls save and new
def create(attributes = nil, options = {}, &block)
if attributes.is_a?(Array)
attributes.collect { |attr| create(attr, options, &block) }
else
object = new(attributes, options, &block)
object.save
object
end
end
So possibly your second test would cover both cases.
It is not straight forward to write tests which are implementation independent. That's why integration tests have a lot of value and are better suited than unit tests for testing the behavior of the application.
In the code you're presented, you're not exactly mocking or stubbing. Let's take a look at the first spec:
RSpec.describe UsersController, :type => :controller do
describe "POST 'create'" do
it 'saves new user' do
expect(User).to receive(:create)
post :create, :name => "abc"
end
end
end
Here, you're testing that User received the 'create' message. You're right that there's something wrong with this test because it's going to break if you change the implementation of the controllers 'create' action, which defeats the purpose of testing. Tests should be flexible to change and not a hinderance.
What you want to do is not test implementation, but side effects. What is the controller 'create' action supposed to do? It's supposed to create a user. Here's how I would test it
# /spec/controllers/users_controller_spec.rb
RSpec.describe UsersController, :type => :controller do
describe "POST 'create'" do
it 'saves new user' do
expect { post :create, name: 'abc' }.to change(User, :count).by(1)
end
end
end
As for mocking and stubbing, I try to stay away from too much stubbing. I think it's super useful when you're trying to test conditionals. Here's an example:
# /app/controllers/users_controller.rb
class UsersController < ApplicationController
def create
user = User.new(user_params)
if user.save
flash[:success] = 'User created'
redirect_to root_path
else
flash[:error] = 'Something went wrong'
render 'new'
end
end
# /spec/controllers/users_controller_spec.rb
RSpec.describe UsersController, :type => :controller do
describe "POST 'create'" do
it "renders new if didn't save" do
User.any_instance.stub(:save).and_return(false)
post :create, name: 'abc'
expect(response).to render_template('new')
end
end
end
Here I'm stubbing out 'save' and returning 'false' so I can test what's supposed to happen if the user fails to save.
Also, the other answers were correct in saying that you want to stub out external services so you don't call on their API every time you're running your test suite.
I'm working on a test for my Rails 4 app and I'm pretty new to using RSpec. I have a controller named AppsController which has the standard index, new, show, create... methods and they all work the way Rails suggest Etc. "new" creates a new instance of the object and create actually saves it, show, shows it and index shows all of the object. Here are my current tests can anyone see any potential problems or things that i could improve?
FactoryGirl.define do
factory :developer do
email 'example#me.com'
password 'new_york'
password_confirmation 'new_york'
tos '1'
end
factory :app do
name 'New App'
tos '1'
end
factory :invalid_app, parent: :app do
name 'nil'
tos '0'
end
end
require 'spec_helper'
def create_valid!
post :create, app: app_attributes
end
def create_invalid!
post :create, app: app_invalid_attributes
end
def show!
get :show, id: app
end
def update_valid!
put :update, id: app, app: app_attributes
end
def update_invalid!
put :update, id: app, app: app_invalid_attributes
end
def delete!
delete :destroy, id: app
end
def http_success
expect(response).to be_success
end
def expect_template(view)
expect(response).to render_template(view)
end
describe AppsController do
render_views
before(:each) do
#developer = FactoryGirl.create(:developer)
#developer.confirm!
sign_in #developer
end
let(:app) { FactoryGirl.create(:app, developer: #developer) }
let(:app_attributes) { FactoryGirl.attributes_for(:app) }
let(:app_invalid_attributes) { FactoryGirl.attributes_for(:invalid_app) }
describe 'GET #index' do
it 'responds with an HTTP 200 status' do
get :index
http_success
end
it 'renders the :index view' do
get :index
expect_template(:index)
end
it 'populates #apps with the current_developers apps' do
app = FactoryGirl.create(:app, :developer => #developer)
get :index
expect(assigns(:app)).to eq([app])
end
end
describe 'POST #create' do
context 'with valid parameters' do
it 'creates a new app' do
expect { create_valid!
}.to change(App, :count).by(1)
end
it 'redirects to the new app keys' do
create_valid!
expect(response).to redirect_to keys_app_path(App.last)
end
end
context 'with invalid parameters' do
it 'does not create the new app' do
expect { create_invalid!
}.to_not change(App, :count)
end
it 'renders the :new view' do
create_invalid!
expect_template(:new)
end
end
end
describe 'GET #show' do
it 'responds with an HTTP 200 status' do
show!
http_success
end
it 'renders the :show view' do
show!
expect_template(:show)
end
it 'populates #app with the requested app' do
show!
expect(assigns(:app)).to eq(app)
end
end
describe 'PUT #update' do
context 'with valid parameters' do
it 'locates the requested app' do
update_valid!
expect(assigns(:app)).to eq(app)
end
it 'changes app attributes' do
update_valid!
expect(app.name).to eq('Updated App')
end
it 'redirects to the updated app' do
update_valid!
expect(response).to redirect_to app
end
end
context 'with invalid parameters' do
it 'locates the requested app' do
update_invalid!
expect(assigns(:app)).to eq(app)
end
it 'does not change app attributes' do
update_invalid!
expect(app.name).to_not eq('Updated App')
end
it 'renders the :edit view' do
update_invalid!
expect_template(:edit)
end
end
end
describe 'DELETE #destroy' do
it 'deletes the app' do
expect { delete!
}.to change(App, :count).by(-1)
end
it 'redirects to apps#index' do
delete!
expect(response).to redirect_to apps_url
end
end
end
count should have been changed by -1, but was changed by 0 - on DELETE #destroy
expecting <"new"> but rendering with <[]> - on POST #create
expected: "Updated App"
got: "New App" - on PUT #update
expecting <"edit"> but rendering with <[]> - on PUT #update
expected: [#<App id: nil, unique_id: "rOIc5p", developer_id: 18, name: "New App">]
got: nil - on GET #index
Small thing - your #http_success method is testing the exact same thing twice.
You could also factor out the references to app by putting a #let statement right after your #before block:
let(:app) { FactoryGirl.create(:app, developer: #developer) }
then in your specs, just
it 'renders the :show view' do
get :show, id: app
expect_template(:show)
end
Edit:
Then the order of operations will be 1) the #developer is created in the #before block, 2) the spec is entered, 3) at the first reference to app in the spec, the #let block will create an instance of an app.
That means you can't factor out the app creation in the #index spec, because in that case the spec will call the action before it creates the app.
A few things I thought of, reading your code:
You don't need to include parens on method calls taking no arguments. Just http_success will work.
You should get try to use the modern RSpec expectation syntax consistently. Instead of assigns(:app).should eq(app), use expect(assigns(:app)).to eq(app). (There's one exception to this, which is expectations on mocks (ie. should_receive(:message)), which will only take on the modern expect-to syntax as of RSpec 3.
For controller specs, I like to create little methods for each action that actually invokes the action. You'll notice you call get :show, id: app several times in the GET #show specs. To DRY up your specs a little more, you could instead write the following method within the describe block:
def show!
get :show, id: app
end
Try to use one Hash syntax consistently. What's more, Rails 4 can't be run with Ruby 1.8, so there's (nearly) no reason to use the hash-rocket Hash syntax.
If I'm getting really, really picky, I usually consider instance variables in a spec to be a smell. In almost all cases, instance variables should be refactored to a memoized let/given blocks.
If I'm getting really, really, really picky, I prefer to think of controller specs such as yours as strictly a unit test of the controller, not an integration test (that's what Capybara is for), and as such you shouldn't be exercising your model layer at all. You should only be testing that your controller is sending the right messages to the model layer. In other words, all the model layer stuff should be stubbed out. For example:
describe 'GET #show' do
let(:app) { stub(:app) }
before do
App.stub(:find).and_return(app)
end
it 'populates #app' do
get :show, id: app
assigns(:app).should eq(app)
end
end
I know this last is a personal preference, not a metaphysical truth or even necessarily a wide-spread standard convention, so you may choose to take it or leave it. I prefer it, because it keeps my specs very speedy, and gives me a very clear heuristic for when my controller actions are doing too much, and I might need to consider refactoring. It could be a good habit to get into.
First, I'm not certain but I suspect your invalid app factory may be wrong. Did you mean
factory :invalid_app, parent: :app do
name nil
tos '0'
end
nil as a ruby NilClass not "nil" as a string?
As for other comments about cleanup and stuff, here are a few of my thoughts.
You can avoid the need for some of your helper methods and duplication by using before blocks for each describe. Taking just your index tests you could have something more like
describe 'GET #index' do
before do
get :index
end
it 'responds with an HTTP 200 status' do
http_success
end
it 'renders the :index view' do
expect_template(:index)
end
it 'populates #apps with the current_developers apps' do
expect(assigns(:app)).to eq([app])
end
end
Notice also that you don't need to recreate app because your let is doing it as necessary.
On the failures, I suspect the delete count change could be failing because inside the expectation, the test framework is creating a new app (from the let) and then deleting it leading to a count change of 0. For that test, you need to make sure you're app is created outside of your expectation. Because you are using let, you could do that like this:
describe 'DELETE #destroy' do
it 'deletes the app' do
# ensure that app is already created
app
expect {
delete!
}.to change(App, :count).by(-1)
end
end
alternatively, change the let to a let! which will force the creation before the specs actually run.
As for other failures, thought #DanielWright suggested the helper methods, I find those complicate the debug. I can't see where you set the app name to "Updated App", for example. Perhaps a clearer test (for that particular one) would not use the helper methods but could be more explicit. Something like
describe 'PUT #update' do
let(:app_attributes) { FactoryGirl.attributes_for(:app, name: 'The New App Name') }
before do
put :update, id: app, app: app_attributes
end
context 'with valid parameters' do
it 'locates the requested app' do
expect(assigns(:app)).to eq(app)
end
it 'changes app attributes' do
# notice the reload which will make sure you refetch this from the db
expect(app.reload.name).to eq('The New App Name')
end
it 'redirects to the updated app' do
expect(response).to redirect_to app
end
end
end
For the other errors, you might want to start debugging your code. Are you certain it should work? Have you looked at output logs? Maybe the tests are doing there job and finding errors in your controller code. Have you done any step-through debugging?