I'd like to test models working with each other. Something like this:
query = Query.new
user = users(:first)
assert_equal Query::STATUSES[:new], query.status
query.resend_to user.id
asser_equal Query::STATUSES[:resent], query.status
asser_equal 1, user.queries.size
But I even dont know, what is the right name for such kind of testing, scenario driven testing, behaviour driven testing?
Please, tell me how it's called and some examples.
Related
It said here https://www.relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-core/v/3-5/docs/helper-methods/let-and-let what variable defined by let is changing across examples.
I've made the same simple test as in the docs but with the AR model:
RSpec.describe Contact, type: :model do
let(:contact) { FactoryGirl.create(:contact) }
it "cached in the same example" do
a = contact
b = contact
expect(a).to eq(b)
expect(Contact.count).to eq(1)
end
it "not cached across examples" do
a = contact
expect(Contact.count).to eq(2)
end
end
First example passed, but second failed (expected 2, got 1). So contacts table is empty again before second example, inspite of docs.
I was using let and was sure it have the same value in each it block, and my test prove it. So suppose I misunderstand docs. Please explain.
P.S. I use DatabaseCleaner
P.P.S I turn it off. Nothing changed.
EDIT
I turned off DatabaseCleaner and transational fixtures and test pass.
As I can understand (new to programming), let is evaluated once for each it block. If I have three examples each calling on contact variable, my test db will grow to three records at the end (I've tested and so it does).
And for right test behevior I should use DatabaseCleaner.
P.S. I use DatabaseCleaner
That's why your database is empty in the second example. Has nothing to do with let.
The behaviour you have shown is the correct behaviour. No example should be dependant on another example in setting up the correct environment! If you did rely on caching then you are just asking for trouble later down the line.
The example in that document is just trying to prove a point about caching using global variables - it's a completely different scenario to unit testing a Rails application - it is not good practice to be reliant on previous examples to having set something up.
Lets, for example, assume you then write 10 other tests that follow on from this, all of which rely on the fact that the previous examples have created objects. Then at some point in the future you delete one of those examples ... BOOM! every test after that will suddenly fail.
Each test should be able to be tested in isolation from any other test!
How should Rails named scopes be tested? Do you test the results returned from a scope, or that your query is configured correctly?
If I have a User class with an .admins method like:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
def self.admins
where(admin: true)
end
end
I would probably spec to ensure I get the results I expect:
describe '.admins' do
let(:admin) { create(:user, admin: true) }
let(:non_admin) { create(:user, admin: false) }
let(:admins) { User.admins }
it 'returns admin users' do
expect(admins).to include(admin)
expect(admins).to_not include(non_admin)
end
end
I know that this incurs hits to the database, but I didn't really see any other choice if I wanted to test the scope's behaviour.
However, recently I've seen scopes being specced by confirming that they're configured correctly, rather than on the result set returned. For this example, something like:
describe '.admins' do
let(:query) { User.admins }
let(:filter) { query.where_values_hash.symbolize_keys }
let(:admin_filter) { { admin: true } }
it 'filters for admin users' do
expect(filter).to eq(admin_filter) # or some other similar assertion
end
end
Testing the direct innards of a query like this hadn't really occurred to me before, and on face value it is appealing to me since it doesn't touch the database, so no speed hit incurred.
However, it makes me uneasy because:
it's making a black-box test grey(er)
I have to make the assumption that because something is configured a certain way, I'll get the results that my business logic requires
The example I've used is so trivial that perhaps I'd be okay with just testing the configuration, but:
where do you draw the line and say 'the content of this named scope is too complex and requires result confirmation tests over and above just scope configuration testing'? Does that line even exist or should it?
Is there a legitimate/well-accepted/'best practice' (sorry) way to test named scopes without touching the database, or at least touching it minimally, or is it just unavoidable?
Do you use either of the above ways to test your scopes, or some other method entirely?
This question(s) is a bit similar to Testing named scopes with RSpec, but I couldn't seem to find answers/opinions about testing scope results vs scope configuration.
I think you have described the problem very well, and that the best answer, in my opinion is - it depends.
If your scope is trivial, run-of-the-mill where, with some order, etc. there is no real need to test ActiveRecord or the database to make sure they work properly - you can safely assume that they have been correctly implemented, and simply test the structure you expect.
If, on the other hand, your scope (or any query) is compound, or uses advanced features in a complex configuration, I believe that setting up tests that assert its behavior, by using a real live database (which is installed locally, with a small custom-tailored data set) can go a long way in assuring you that your code works.
It will also help you, if and when you decide to change strategies (use that cool new mysql feature, or porting to postgresql), to refactor safely, by checking that the functionality is robust.
This is a much better way than to simply verify the the SQL string is what you typed there...
We're doing a rails 3.2.1 project with RSpec 2. My question is, should i be testing the basic persistence of each of my activerecord models? I used to do this in my C# / NHibernate days, to ensure the correct tables/mappings were there.
So if i have a customer with name, address and phone fields, I might write an rspec like this:
describe Customer do
it "saves & retrieves its fields to and from the db"
c = Customer.new
c.name = "Bob Smith"
c.address = "123 some street"
c.phone = "555-555-5555"
or = Order.new
c.orders << or
c.save
found = Customer.find(c.id)
found.should_not be(c)
found.name.should == c.name
found.address.should == c.address
found.phone.should == c.phone
found.orders.count.should == 1
found.orders[0].id.should == or.id
end
end
Is this "best practice" or common in the ruby/rails/rspec world? I should also note that the point is not to test what rails is doing natively, but instead test that the correct fields and relationships are setup in the db and models.
No. You shouldn't be unit testing the persistence. A unit test validates the unit works in isolation, and you should only test your code. The persistence functionality is a part of Rails, and since it is not your code, you shouldn't write unit tests for it.
You could be interested in testing the mappings, but not in a unit test. You would write an integration test for that. An integration test would test your module, integrating with another part of the system, perhaps all the way to the database. Running those tests would validate that your module works with the database, i.e. the mappings are good.
In short - you don't test persistence in unit tests; you test them in integration tests.
No, I don't believe it is a best practice to do this sort of lower level testing as the majority of these tests would be built into to the testing for Rails and the ORM you are using.
However, if you are overriding any methods or performing complex association logic in your models it'd be best to have your own tests.
I'm comfortable creating basic stubs, but a little confused about how to specify things such as order (and reversing it), etc.
To give a concrete example, here is a line in my controller that I'm trying to test:
#courses = Course.order('created_at').reverse
In my controller spec, the (obviously failing) stub is:
Course.stub(:all) { [mock_course] }
...and the rspec error:
Failure/Error: assigns(:courses).should eq([mock_course])
expected [#<Course:0x818614e8 #name="Course_1001">]
got [#<Course id: 2, name: "Second test course", price: #<BigDecimal:1030e73c0,'0.4995E2',18(18)>]
Despite being an inaccurate test (not testing ordering), i would have guessed the spec would pass. It doesn't - it's pulling from the database, not the mock. Soo...I guess what I'm asking is, how do I stub Course.order('created_at').reverse ?
Many thanks...
You're assuming that ActiveRecord will call Course.all at some point, which may not be the case.
Try this:
Course.stub_chain(:order, :reverse) { [mock_course] }
To avoid having to do chained stubbing, you could move the ActiveRecord code into your model, so the controller would have something simpler such as:
Course.all_by_newest_first
I am making a concerted effort to wrap my head around Rspec in order to move towards more of a TDD/BDD development pattern. However, I'm a long way off and struggling with some of the fundamentals:
Like, when exactly should I be using mocks/stubs and when shouldn't I?
Take for example this scenario: I have a Site model that has_many :blogs and the Blog model has_many :articles. In my Site model I have a callback filter that creates a default set of blogs and articles for every new site. I want to test that code, so here goes:
describe Site, "when created" do
include SiteSpecHelper
before(:each) do
#site = Site.create valid_site_attributes
end
it "should have 2 blogs" do
#site.should have(2).blogs
end
it "should have 1 main blog article" do
#site.blogs.find_by_slug("main").should have(1).articles
end
it "should have 2 secondary blog articles" do
#site.blogs.find_by_slug("secondary").should have(2).articles
end
end
Now, if I run that test, everything passes. However, it's also pretty slow as it's creating a new Site, two new Blogs and three new Articles - for every single test! So I wonder, is this a good candidate for using stubs? Let's give it a go:
describe Site, "when created" do
include SiteSpecHelper
before(:each) do
site = Site.new
#blog = Blog.new
#article = Article.new
Site.stub!(:create).and_return(site)
Blog.stub!(:create).and_return(#blog)
Article.stub!(:create).and_return(#article)
#site = Site.create valid_site_attributes
end
it "should have 2 blogs" do
#site.stub!(:blogs).and_return([#blog, #blog])
#site.should have(2).blogs
end
it "should have 1 main blog article" do
#blog.stub!(:articles).and_return([#article])
#site.stub_chain(:blogs, :find_by_slug).with("main").and_return(#blog)
#site.blogs.find_by_slug("main").should have(1).articles
end
it "should have 2 secondary blog articles" do
#blog.stub!(:articles).and_return([#article, #article])
#site.stub_chain(:blogs, :find_by_slug).with("secondary").and_return(#blog)
#site.blogs.find_by_slug("secondary").should have(2).articles
end
end
Now all the tests still pass, and things are a bit speedier too. But, I've doubled the length of my tests and the whole exercise just strikes me as utterly pointless, because I'm no longer testing my code, I'm just testing my tests.
Now, either I've completely missed the point of mocks/stubs, or I'm approaching it fundamentally wrong, but I'm hoping someone might be able to either:
Improve me tests above so it uses stubs or mocks in a way that actually tests my code, rather than my tests.
Or, tell me if I should even be using stubs here - or whether in fact this is completely unnecessary and I should be writing these models to the test database.
But, I've doubled the length of my tests and the whole exercise just strikes me as utterly pointless, because I'm no longer testing my code, I'm just testing my tests.
This is the key right here. Tests that don't test your code aren't useful. If you can negatively change the code that your tests are supposed to be testing, and the tests don't fail, they're not worth having.
As a rule of thumb, I don't like to mock/stub anything unless I have to. For example, when I'm writing a controller test, and I want to make sure that the appropriate action happens when a record fails to save, I find it easier to stub the object's save method to return false, rather than carefully crafting parameters just so in order to make sure a model fails to save.
Another example is for a helper called admin? that just returns true or false based on whether or not the currently logged-in user is an admin or not. I didn't want to go through faking a user login, so I did this:
# helper
def admin?
unless current_user.nil?
return current_user.is_admin?
else
return false
end
end
# spec
describe "#admin?" do
it "should return false if no user is logged in" do
stubs(:current_user).returns(nil)
admin?.should be_false
end
it "should return false if the current user is not an admin" do
stubs(:current_user).returns(mock(:is_admin? => false))
admin?.should be_false
end
it "should return true if the current user is an admin" do
stubs(:current_user).returns(mock(:is_admin? => true))
admin?.should be_true
end
end
As a middle ground, you might want to look into Shoulda. This way you can just make sure your models have an association defined, and trust that Rails is well-tested enough that the association will "just work" without you having to create an associated model and then counting it.
I've got a model called Member that basically everything in my app is related to. It has 10 associations defined. I could test each of those associations, or I could just do this:
it { should have_many(:achievements).through(:completed_achievements) }
it { should have_many(:attendees).dependent(:destroy) }
it { should have_many(:completed_achievements).dependent(:destroy) }
it { should have_many(:loots).dependent(:nullify) }
it { should have_one(:last_loot) }
it { should have_many(:punishments).dependent(:destroy) }
it { should have_many(:raids).through(:attendees) }
it { should belong_to(:rank) }
it { should belong_to(:user) }
it { should have_many(:wishlists).dependent(:destroy) }
This is exactly why I use stubs/mocks very rarely (really only when I'm going to be hitting an external webservice). The time saved just isn't worth the added complexity.
There are better ways to speed up your testing time, and Nick Gauthier gives a good talk covering a bunch of them - see the video and the slides.
Also, I think a good option is to try out an in-memory sqlite database for your test runs. This should cut down on your database time by quite a bit by not having to hit the disk for everything. I haven't tried this myself, though (I primarily use MongoDB, which has the same benefit), so tread carefully. Here's a fairly recent blog post on it.
I'm not so sure with agreeing on the others. The real problem (as I see it) here, is that you're testing multiple pieces of interesting behavior with the same tests (the finding behavior, and the creation). For reasons on why this is bad, see this talk: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/integration-tests-scam. I'm assuming for the rest of this answer that you want to test that creation is what you want to test.
Isolationist tests often seem unwieldy, but that's often because they have design lessons to teach you. Below are some basic things I can see out of this (though without seeing the production code, I can't do too much good).
For starters, to query the design, does having the Site add articles to a blog make sense? What about a class method on Blog called something like Blog.with_one_article. This then means all you have to test is that that class method has been called twice (if [as I understand it for now], you have a "primary" and "secondary" Blog for each Site, and that the associations are set up (I haven't found a great way to do this in rails yet, I usually don't test it).
Furthermore, are you overriding ActiveRecord's create method when you call Site.create? If so, I'd suggest making a new class method on Site named something else (Site.with_default_blogs possibly?). This is just a general habit of mine, overriding stuff generally causes problems later on in projects.