I am trying to test my Grape API, but I am receiving a 400 error in my tests, but when I run the action the test is supposed to test, I get a 201 HTTP response as expected. Not sure what is going on here. Below is the specific RSpec test, but you can view the whole project with the factories and the actual Grape API on GitHub at hackcentral/hackcentral. The test below is testing the POST create action on Alpha::Applications. (app/api/alpha/applications.rb)
describe 'POST #create' do
before :each do
#oauth_application = FactoryGirl.build(:oauth_application)
#token = Doorkeeper::AccessToken.create!(:application_id => #oauth_application.id, :resource_owner_id => user.id)
end
context "with valid attributes" do
it "creates a new application" do
expect{
post "http://api.vcap.me:3000/v1/applications?access_token=#{#token.token}", application: FactoryGirl.attributes_for(:application), :format => :json
} .to change(Application, :count).by(1)
end
it "creates a new application, making sure response is #201" do
post "http://api.vcap.me:3000/v1/applications", application: FactoryGirl.attributes_for(:application), :format => :json, :access_token => #token.token
response.status.should eq(201)
end
end
end
I don't understand why are you testing http://api.vcap.me an not localhost?
You usually test the app on the local enviroment. And this is not the right why to test if the server is working either.
Here is an example of how your test should look like.
https://github.com/dblock/grape-on-rails/blob/master/spec/api/ping_spec.rb from an example project
Related
In my Rails 5 app I have this:
class InvoicesController < ApplicationController
def index
#invoices = current_account.invoices
respond_to do |format|
format.csv do
invoices_file(:csv)
end
format.xml do
invoices_file(:xml)
end
end
end
private
def invoices_file(type)
headers['Content-Disposition'] = "inline; filename=\"invoices.#{type.to_s}\""
end
end
describe InvoicesController, :type => :controller do
it "renders a csv attachment" do
get :index, :params => {:format => :csv}
expect(response.headers["Content-Type"]).to eq("text/csv; charset=utf-8")
expect(response).to have_http_status(200)
expect(response).to render_template :index
end
end
My problem is that my Spec always passes (!), even when I put a bunch of crap into my index.csv.erb file. It seems that the view file isn't even evaluated / tested by RSpec.
How is this possible? What am I missing here?
Controller tests/specs are these weird stubbed creations born out of the idea of unit testing controllers in isolation. That idea turned out to be pretty flawed and has really fallen out of vogue lately.
Controller specs don't actually make a real HTTP request to your application that passes through the routes. Rather they just kind of fake it and pass a fake request through.
To make the tests faster they also don't really render the views either. Thats why it does not error out as you have expected. And the response is not really a real rack response object either.
You can make RSpec render the views with render_views.
describe InvoicesController, :type => :controller do
render_views
it "renders a csv attachment" do
get :index, format: :csv
expect(response.headers["Content-Type"]).to eq("text/csv; charset=utf-8")
expect(response).to have_http_status(200)
expect(response).to render_template :index
end
end
But a better and more future proof option is using a request spec.
The official recommendation of the Rails team and the RSpec core team
is to write request specs instead. Request specs allow you to focus on
a single controller action, but unlike controller tests involve the
router, the middleware stack, and both rack requests and responses.
This adds realism to the test that you are writing, and helps avoid
many of the issues that are common in controller specs.
http://rspec.info/blog/2016/07/rspec-3-5-has-been-released/
# spec/requests/invoices
require 'rails_helper'
require 'csv'
RSpec.describe "Invoices", type: :request do
let(:csv) { response.body.parse_csv }
# Group by the route
describe "GET /invoices" do
it "renders a csv attachment" do
get invoices_path, format: :csv
expect(response.headers["Content-Type"]).to eq("text/csv; charset=utf-8")
expect(response).to have_http_status(200)
expect(csv).to eq ["foo", "bar"] # just an example
end
end
end
The format option should be specified outside of the params, i.e. get :index, params: {}, format: :csv}.
Regarding RSpec evaluating views, no, in controller tests, it doesn't, regardless of the format. However, it's possible to test views with RSpec: https://relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-rails/v/2-0/docs/view-specs/view-spec
I am new to RSpec but here I am trying to create tests based on this code and I am keep on getting this error. Any suggestions?
CODE:
serialization_scope nil
before_action :set_list, only: [:show, :destroy, :update]
before_action :verify_user, only: :show
def create
#list = current_user.lists.build(list_params)
if #list.save
render json: {message: ['Success']}, status: 200
else
render json: {errors:[#list.errors.full_messages]}, status: 400
end
end
Here is the RSpec file that I started :
require "rails_helper"
RSpec.describe V1::ListsController, :type => :controller do
describe "POST create" do
it "returns HTTP status" do
expect(post :create).to change(#list, :count).by(+1)
expect(response).to have_http_status :success #200
end
end
describe 'GET status if its not created' do
it "return HTTP status - reports BAD REQUEST (HTTP status 400)" do
expect(response.status).to eq 400
end
end
end
And the error that I got is :
Failures:
1) V1::ListsController GET status if its created returns HTTP status
Failure/Error: expect(post :create).to change(#list, :count).by(+1)
expected #count to have changed by 1, but was not given a block
# ./spec/controllers/lists_controller_spec.rb:8:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>'
2) GET status if its not created return HTTP status - reports BAD REQUEST (HTTP status 400)
Failure/Error: expect(response.status).to eq 400
expected: 400
got: 200
(compared using ==)
Try this code.
require 'rails_helper'
RSpec.describe V1::ListsController, type: :request do
describe 'valid request' do
it 'returns HTTP status' do
post '/list', params: { list: { list_name: 'xyz' } }
expect(response.status).to eq 201
end
end
describe 'invalid request' do
it "should return unauthorized" do
post '/list'
assert_response :unauthorized
end
end
end
In params you need to pass your list_params.
Spec would look like:
describe "POST create" do
context 'valid request' do
it 'should increase #list item' do
expect { post :create }.to change(List, :count).by(1)
end
it "returns HTTP status" do
post :create
expect(response).to have_http_status :success #200
end
end
context 'invalid request' do
it "return HTTP status - reports BAD REQUEST (HTTP status 400)" do
get :create
expect(response.status).to eq 400
end
end
end
Cheers!
You can test an object not being created by intentionally causing some of its validations to fail e.g. you can pass a mandatory attribute as nil from the RSpec.
Sample request: post :create, { title: nil }.
But as per your RSpec code, it seems there are no validations on List model. So, lets try to stub save and return false for this particular test.
describe 'GET status if its not created' do
# Assuming your model name is `List`
before { allow_any_instance_of(List).to receive(:save) { false } }
it "return HTTP status - reports BAD REQUEST (HTTP status 400)" do
post :create
expect(response.status).to eq 400
end
end
Please post your model for list and i can update the answer with more appropriate test.
Ishika, let me see if I can help you :)
RSpec official documentation recommends you to use request specs instead of controller specs. That is recommended because Rails 5 deprecated some methods used on controller testings. You can read more about this here at RSpec blog
ps.: You can use controller tests so far, but it can be deprecated in a future major version of RSpec.
There are some notes I left after the code, please read them also.
I would write a request spec like this:
# spec/requests/v1/lists_controller_create_spec.rb
require "rails_helper"
RSpec.describe V1::ListsController do
describe 'success' do
it 'returns ok and creates a list', :aggregate_failures do # :aggregate_failures is available only for RSpec 3.3+
expect do
post '/list', title: 'foo' # This will also test your route, avoiding routing specs to be necessary
end.to change { List.count }.from(0).to(1)
expect(response).to have_http_status(:ok)
end
end
describe 'bad request' do
before do
# This is needed because your controller is not validating the object, but look at my
# comment below (out of the code), to think about this behavior, please.
allow_any_instance_of(List).to receive(:save).and_return(false)
end
it 'returns a bad request and does not create a list' do
expect do
post '/list', title: 'foo' # This will also test your route, avoiding routing specs to be necessary
end.not_to change { List.count }
expect(response).to have_http_status(:bad_request)
end
end
end
Notes:
I suggested using more than 1 expectation by example, that is ok in this spec because they are simple and because I'm using :aggregate_failures option. With this option, if the first expectation fails, the next expectations will also be executed, considering that in this case, the following expectations does not depend on the first one, it is ok to use more than 1 expectation for the example.Reference
You are returning a bad request if the object is not saved, but you are not validating it. If your model has validations that will validate the object there, please adjust the specs to fail the save (instead of using the mock I used) and consider rendering an error message in the response
If you think that making the post inside a expect block, you can do different: Store the count of Lists in a variable before making the post and after the post you test if the variable has changed or not, maybe you think it will be more clear and it will do exactly the same thing in the background.
I'm trying to write some rspec tests to check API endpoints for an API-only application.
Testing error
Failure/Error: expect( res ).to be_success
expected 200 to respond to `success?`
But if the same call (with full api url) is made from another application it works fine and returns a response.
Example from other application:
res = RestClient.get "site.io/api/v1/projects/1"
p JSON.parse(res)
Blog example I'm trying to follow: (http://matthewlehner.net/rails-api-testing-guidelines/).
# spec/requests/api/v1/messages_spec.rb
describe "Messages API" do
it 'sends a list of messages' do
FactoryGirl.create_list(:message, 10)
get '/api/v1/messages'
json = JSON.parse(response.body)
# test for the 200 status-code
expect(response).to be_success
# check to make sure the right amount of messages are returned
expect(json['messages'].length).to eq(10)
end
end
My Application
/requests/projects_spec.rb
require 'rails_helper'
RSpec.describe Project do
describe "show_project" do
before do
#project1 = create(:project)
end
it "Checks if responds successfully" do
res = get '/api/v1/projects/1'
expect( res ).to be_success
end
end
end
/factories/projects.rb
FactoryGirl.define do
factory :project do
name "Thing"
key "123123"
end
end
routes.rb
namespace :api, :defaults => { :format => 'json'} do
namespace :v1 do
resources :projects, only: [:create, :show]
end
end
end
I don't have much experience with testing, so if anyone can point me in the correct direction I would really really appreciate it.
When using Rspec Request Specs, your call to get '/api/v1/projects/1' doesn't need to captured by your res variable. Spec Request tests automatically set the value of response when get '/api/v1/projects/1' is run. The example you're following is correct, it just looks like your missing some knowledge about how much Rspec is handling for you behind the scenes. This makes your test simpler:
it "Checks if responds successfully" do
get '/api/v1/projects/1'
expect(response).to be_success
end
In Rspec Request tests, response is automatically setup by the call the get without you needing to do anything extra.
I am developing an exercise in Rails. I just have to create some users and let them login. When a user is created, I need to send a json respond (I know how to do that), but I don't know how to test using RSPEC that that response is correct. This is my attempt:
describe "with correct input" do
before { #user.save }
specify { expect(User.count).to eq(1) }
it "should respond json" do
post '/signup.json', :user => {:name => 'ppppp', :login => '1234567890'}
json = JSON.parse(response.body)
expect(json["user_name"]).to eq('ppppp')
expect(json["login_count"]).to eq('1234567890')
end
end
When I try this I obtain the error: NoMethodError:undefined method `post'
Thank you!!
Is this a controller spec? If yes, is the spec file placed under spec/controllers folder.
By default Rspec assumes the controller specs to be under this folder. If the file isn't in the controllers folder add :type => :controller to the example group.
Refer the Rspec documentation.
Hope this helps.
Does anyone know how to make rspec follow a redirect (in a controller spec)? (e.g test/unit has follow_redirect!)
I have tried "follow_redirect!" and "follow_redirect" but only get
undefined method `follow_redirect!' for #<Spec::Rails::Example::ControllerExampleGroup::Subclass_1:0xb6df5294>
For example:
When I create an account the page is redirected to accounts page and my new account should be at the top of the list.
it "should create an account" do
post :create, :name => "My New Account"
FOLLOW_REDIRECT!
response.code.should == "200"
accounts = assigns[:accounts]
accounts[0].name.should == "My New Account"
end
But FOLLOW_REDIRECT! needs to be changed to something that actually works.
I think this is the default behavior for rspec-rails controller tests, in the sense that you can set an expectation on the response status and/or path, and test for success.
For example:
it "should create an account" do
post :create
response.code.should == "302"
response.should redirect_to(accounts_path)
end
You can access the redirect location with
response.headers['Location']
you could then request that directly.
If you want to test the redirect you are moving outside of the rspec-rails domain.
You can use Webrat or some other integration-test framework to test this.
The easiest way to solve this without resorting to integration testing is probably to mock out the method that is causing the redirect.
The spec is out of scope, if you want to follow a redirect use request spec, the equivalent of integration test in Test::Unit.
In request specs follow_redirect! works as well as in Test::Unit.
Or if you want to redirect inmediately use _via_redirect as suffix for the verb, example:
post_via_redirect :create, user: #user
Try to use integration/request tests. They are using web-like acces through routing to controllers.
For example:
I have for Rails 2 app in file /spec/integration/fps_spec.rb
require 'spec_helper'
describe "FinPoradci" do
it "POST /fps.html with params" do
fp_params={:accord_id => "FP99998", :under_acc => "OM001", :first_name => "Pavel", :last_name => "Novy"}
fp_test=FinPoradce.new(fp_params)
#after create follow redirection to show
post_via_redirect "/fps", {:fp => fp_params}
response.response_code.should == 200 # => :found , not 302 :created
new_fp=assigns(:fp)
new_fp.should_not be_empty
new_fp.errors.should be_empty
flash[:error].should be_empty
flash[:notice].should_not be_empty
response.should render_template(:show)
end
end
and it works. Until you want to send headers (for basic http authorization).
env={'HTTP_AUTHORIZATION' => ActionController::HttpAuthentication::Basic.encode_credentials(user,password)}
post_via_redirect "/fps", {:fp => fp_params}, env
is fine for create, but after redirection it returns 401 and needs new authorization.
SO I have to split it in 2 tests: creation and show on result of creation.
For RSpec / Capybara + Rails
response_headers['Location']
But it works only if there is no delay before redirect.
If it is there, then it's harder to follow the logic.