Testing Rails model validations with RSpec, without testing AR itself - ruby-on-rails

Question

Testing Rails model validations with RSpec, without testing AR itself
Lets as setup we have model User:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
validate :name, presence: true, uniqueness: { case_sensitive: false }, on: :create
validate :password, presence: true, format: { with: /\A[a-zA-z]*\z/ }
end
A see several ways to test this:
it { expect(user).to validate_presence_of(:name).on(:create) }
or
it do
user = User.create(name: '')
expect(user.errors[:name]).to be_present
end
My main question is which of the approaches is better and why? Can suggest me different approach?
Additional questions:
How much should I test? As an example, I can write so many tests for the regex, but it will be hell for maintenance.
How much you think will be full test coverage in this example?

Answer 1

The functionalities of:
Rails being able to validate the presence of an arbitrary value on your model
errors being added to an object for an attribute that is missing when a validation for it is configured
are covered in the tests for Rails itself (specifically, in the ActiveModel tests).
That leaves needing to write the tests for the config that covers the business logic of your app eg validating the presence of the specific name attribute on your specific User class etc. In my opinion, the matchers from the shoulda-matchers gem should have you covered:
RSpec.describe User, type: :model do
subject(:user) { build(:user) } # assuming you're using FactoryGirl
describe 'validations' do
specify 'for name' do
expect(user).to validate_presence_of(:name).on(:create)
# NOTE: saving here is needed to test uniqueness amongst users in
# the database
user.save
expect(user).to validate_uniqueness_of(:name)
end
specify 'for password' do
expect(user).to validate_presence_of(:password)
expect(user).to allow_value('abcd').for(:password)
expect(user).to_not allow_value('1234').for(:password)
end
end
end
I think that unless you have specific custom error messages for your errors that you want to test for (ie you've overridden the default Rails ones), then tests like expect(user.errors[:name]).to be_present can be removed (even if you have custom errors, I still think they're of dubious value since those messages will become locale-dependent if you internationalise your app, so I'd test for the display of some kind of error on the page in a feature spec instead).
I can write so many tests for the regex, but it will be hell for maintenance.
I don't think you can really get around this when testing validations for format, so I'd suggest just write some representative test cases and then add/remove those cases as you discover any issues you may have missed, for example:
# use a `let` or extract out into a test helper method
let(:valid_passwords) do
['abcd', 'ABCD', 'AbCd'] # etc etc
end
describe 'validations' do
specify 'for password' do
valid_passwords.each do |password|
expect(user).to allow_value(password).for(:password)
end
end
end
How much you think will be full test coverage in this example?
I've gotten 100% code coverage from reports like SimpleCov when writing unit specs as described above.

Answer 2

These 2 of them should be used, because:
it { expect(user).to validate_presence_of(:name).on(:create) }
=> You are expecting the validate_presence_of should be run on create, this should be the test case for model
it do
user = User.create(name: '')
expect(user.errors[:name]).to be_present
end
=> You are expecting a side effect when creating user with your input, so this should be the test case for controller
Why you shouldn't remove 1 of them:
Remove the 1st test case: what happens if you do database validation level instead, you expect an active record level validation
Remove the 2nd test case: what happens on controller actually creates a new User, how do you expect the error returning!