I'm writing a model test for my Applications model, which accepts_nested_attributes_for(:user). Here's the test that's failing:
describe UserApplication, "associations" do
it { should belong_to(:user) }
it { should accept_nested_attributes_for(:user) }
end
And here's the model:
class UserApplication < ActiveRecord::Base
#attr_accessible all the fields
belongs_to :user
accepts_nested_attributes_for :user
end
I'm using rspec with shoulda-matchers 2.8, and from my research this should all work fine. No spring or any other weirdness, either. Here's the error I'm seeing:
1) UserApplication association
Failure/Error: it { should accept_nested_attributes_for(:user) }
NoMethodError:
undefined method `accept_nested_attributes_for' for #<RSpec::Core::ExampleGroup::Nested_2:0x007fec5c641a40>
# ./spec/models/user_application_spec.rb:25:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>'
I'm not sure what could be causing this. Could this be some weird gem conflict shenanigans or am I missing something obvious?
Okay, so I have to give credit to #PeterAlfvin for giving me the tools to see what was wrong. My gemfile specified gem 'shoulda-matchers' but that was only loading up version 1.0, which didn't have support for accepts_nested_attributes_for. His suggestion, via https://stackoverflow.com/a/2954632/1008891 pointed me in the right direction. Specifying 2.8.0 fixed the problem without immediately breaking anything.
Related
I have a Rails 4 application with a belongs_to relationship which I am trying to test with shoulda-matcher:
The model:
class Foo < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :bar
end
The test:
require 'rails_helper'
Rspec.describe Foo, type: :model do
it { should belong_to :bar }
end
Produces the following error:
NoMethodError:
undefined method `primary_key_name' for #<ActiveRecord::Reflection::BelongsToReflection:0x007fde9b87e368>
Did you mean? primary_key_type
If I use the uglier:
it { Foo.reflect_on_association(:bar).macro.should eq(:belongs_to) }
The test passes.
I have seen this SO and this GitHub issue, but they refer to a different matcher and blames the validates_existence gem which I do not have installed.
I can live with the long-hand syntax, but any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
EDIT:
It looks like my problem was related to gem versions. I changed the versions of shoulda and shoulda-matchers and the relationship matchers now work correctly.
Original gem versions:
rails: 4.2.6
shoulda: 2.11.3
shoulda-matchers: 3.1.1
Working gem versions:
shoulda: 3.5.0
shoulda-matchers: 2.8.0
I'm trying to make my tests robust and really solid, and I've been breaking down some complex queries and associations into smaller ones, or refactoring and moving the data into scopes.
Given the following classes:
class Item < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :location
scope :in_location, ->(location) { where(location: location) }
scope :findable, ->(location, not_ids) {
in_location(location).where.not(id: not_ids)
}
end
class Container < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :location
# THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO TEST
has_many :findable_items, ->(container) {
findable(container.location, container.not_findable_ids)
}, class_name: 'Item'
end
How would you test a variable has_many relationship like this without hitting the database to a significant degree? I know I can test the Item.findable method on it's own; what I'm interested in is the container.findable_items method.
Note: the actual association being tested is more complex than this, and would require pretty extensive set-up; it's running through a few other nested associations and scopes. I'd like to avoid this setup if possible, and just test that the scope is called with the correct values.
Relevant parts of my Gemfile:
rails (4.2.3)
shoulda-matchers (2.6.2)
factory_girl (4.5.0)
factory_girl_rails (4.5.0)
rspec-core (3.3.2)
rspec-expectations (3.3.1)
rspec-its (1.2.0)
rspec-mocks (3.3.2)
rspec-rails (3.3.3)
I have shoulda-matchers in my project, so I can do the basic sanity test:
it { should have_many(:findable_items).class_name('Item') }
but this fails:
describe 'findable_line_items' do
let(:container) { #container } # where container is a valid but unsaved Container
let(:location) { #container.location }
it 'gets items that are in the location and not excluded' do
container.not_findable_ids = [1,2]
# so it doesn't hit the database
expect(Item).to receive(:findable).with(location, container.not_findable_ids)
container.findable_items
end
end
This spec fails with the following error:
1) Container findable_line_items gets items that are in the location and not excluded
Failure/Error: container.findable_items
NoMethodError:
undefined method `except' for nil:NilClass
# /[redacted]/gems/activerecord-4.2.3/lib/active_record/associations/association_scope.rb:158:in `block (2 levels) in add_constraints'
# /[redacted]/gems/activerecord-4.2.3/lib/active_record/associations/association_scope.rb:154:in `each'
# /[redacted]/gems/activerecord-4.2.3/lib/active_record/associations/association_scope.rb:154:in `block in add_constraints'
# /[redacted]/gems/activerecord-4.2.3/lib/active_record/associations/association_scope.rb:141:in `each'
# /[redacted]/gems/activerecord-4.2.3/lib/active_record/associations/association_scope.rb:141:in `each_with_index'
# /[redacted]/activerecord-4.2.3/lib/active_record/associations/association_scope.rb:141:in `add_constraints'
# /[redacted]/activerecord-4.2.3/lib/active_record/associations/association_scope.rb:39:in `scope'
# /[redacted]/gems/activerecord-4.2.3/lib/active_record/associations/association_scope.rb:5:in `scope'
# /[redacted]/gems/activerecord-4.2.3/lib/active_record/associations/association.rb:97:in `association_scope'
# /[redacted]/gems/activerecord-4.2.3/lib/active_record/associations/association.rb:86:in `scope'
# /[redacted]/gems/activerecord-4.2.3/lib/active_record/associations/collection_association.rb:423:in `scope'
# /[redacted]/gems/activerecord-4.2.3/lib/active_record/associations/collection_proxy.rb:37:in `initialize'
# /[redacted]/gems/activerecord-4.2.3/lib/active_record/relation/delegation.rb:106:in `new'
# /[redacted]/gems/activerecord-4.2.3/lib/active_record/relation/delegation.rb:106:in `create'
# /[redacted]/gems/activerecord-4.2.3/lib/active_record/associations/collection_association.rb:39:in `reader'
# /[redacted]/gems/activerecord-4.2.3/lib/active_record/associations/builder/association.rb:115:in `pickable_items'
# ./spec/models/container_spec.rb:25:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>'
How would you get this spec to pass, without actually setting up an Item that meets all the requirements?
I ended up going with a solution like this:
describe 'findable_line_items' do
let(:container) { #container } # where container is a valid but unsaved Container
let(:location) { #container.location }
it 'gets items that are in the location and not excluded' do
# so it doesn't hit the database
expect(Item).to receive(:findable).with(location, container.not_findable_ids).and_call_original
expect(container).to receive(:location).and_call_original
expect(container).to receive(:not_findable_ids).and_call_original
container.findable_items
end
end
The error that was occurring was somewhere in the ActiveRecord association setup; it was trying to instantiate an ActiveRecord array on a nil object which was being returned from my Item stub. Adding .and_call_original solved that error.
I don't really care to test that the correct objects are being returned from this association, since that scope is being tested elsewhere, just that the scope is being used. It still hits the database in this scenario, but not the 15 times that would be required to set up a full test.
The following spec passes fine in Ruby 2.1.5 but fails in 2.2.0 and I can't tell what that's all about:
# job.rb
class Job < ActiveRecord::Base
validates :link, :url => true
end
# job_spec.rb
require 'rails_helper'
describe Job do
describe "#create" do
["blah", "http://", " "].each do |bad_link|
it {
should_not allow_value(bad_link).for(:link)
}
end
end
end
fail log looks like this:
1) Job#create should not allow link to be set to "http://"
Failure/Error: should_not allow_value(bad_link).for(:link)
Expected errors when link is set to "http://",
got no errors
# ./spec/models/job_spec.rb:14:in `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>'
I find the only way to for that spec to pass with Ruby 2.2.0 is to include the validates_url gem in my project!!
Does anyone know this is about?
Maybe my solution isn't ideal, but it works.
Replace validates_url gem by validates gem. It has UrlValidator (written by me), which is well tested.
gem 'validates' # in Gemfile
validates :link, :url => true # you needn't to change something. Just remove validates_url from your Gemfile
P.S. It's a strange way - to test functionality of gem. Functionality should be tested in gem already.
P.P.S. I'm strongly recommend you to move to ruby 2.2.1 (or 2.2.2) instead of 2.2.0, because of 2.2.0 has a lot of bugs
I have a controller spec something like this
describe :bizzaro_controller do
let(:credit_card_account) { FactoryGirl.build :credit_card_account }
it "doesn't blow up with just the stub" do
CreditCardAccount.stub(:new).and_return(credit_card_account)
end
it "doesn't blow up" do
credit_card_account
CreditCardAccount.stub(:new).and_return(credit_card_account)
end
end
Which results in this:
bizzaro_controller
doesn't blow up with just the stub (FAILED - 1)
doesn't blow up
Failures:
1) bizzaro_controller doesn't blow up
Failure/Error: let(:credit_card_account) { FactoryGirl.build :credit_card_account }
NoMethodError:
undefined method `exp_month=' for nil:NilClass
# ./spec/controllers/user/bizzareo_controller_spec.rb:5:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>'
# ./spec/controllers/user/bizzareo_controller_spec.rb:9:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>'
Finished in 0.23631 seconds
2 examples, 1 failure
My credit card factory looks like this:
FactoryGirl.define do
factory :credit_card_account do
exp_month 10
exp_year 2075
number '3'
end
end
My CreditCardAccount is an empty ActiveRecord::Base model
=> CreditCardAccount(id: integer, exp_month: integer, exp_year: integer, number: string)
Versions
0 HAL:0 work/complex_finance % bundle show rails rspec-rails factory_girl
/home/brundage/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.0.0-p247#complex_finance/gems/rails-4.0.0
/home/brundage/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.0.0-p247#complex_finance/gems/rspec-rails-2.14.0
/home/brundage/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.0.0-p247#complex_finance/gems/factory_girl-4.2.0
This should be working. all points that your test database is not correct.
RAILS_ENV=test rake db:drop db:create will drop and recreate your test database. Then try to run your rspec using the rake command, in order to migrate the database: rake rspec
I was having the same problem, but I think the cause of my problem was different. My solution, however, may perhaps be useful: I used the Fabrication gem (http://www.fabricationgem.org/) instead of FG.
The reason why I was having this problem was because I was trying to have FG create/build an object that was not ActiveRecord, it was only an ActiveModel, and it had to be initialized with arguments.
I didn't see in the Fabricator documentation an example totally like what I needed, but I got it with this syntax:
Fabricator(:my_class) do
on_init do
init_with("Company Name", "Fake second arg")
end
end
My problem was that in model I made a private method called :send (forgot that it is already used in Ruby).
I am writing up a rspec test - and for some reason, i am told that the method any_instance is undefined. I am quite surprised, because I have a very similar expectations in one of my controllers rspec files - and it works fine. Any ideas why this could be happening?
require 'spec_helper'
describe Subscriber do
it {should belong_to :user}
describe "send_message should use mobile to send message" do
subscriber = Subscriber.new(:number => "123")
Mobile.any_instance.should_receive(:send_sms).with("123")
subscriber.send_message("hello!")
end
end
Error
/subscriber_spec.rb:9:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>':
undefined method `any_instance' for Mobile:Class (NoMethodError)
My rspec version (taken from my gemfile is)
gem "rspec-rails", ">= 2.11.0", :group => [:development, :test]
Thanks!
Really clear: you didn't wrap your test in an it block. That's all.