I am newbie to testing. Can someone help me how to test the current_user in rspec.
Example code:
Easy one:
def index
#todos = current_user.todos
end
a bit more hard one
def index
#events = current_user.participating_events.includes(
[:events_users, :participants, :user])
end
How can I write rspec tests for similar kind of problems.
Because it's an integration test, you should strive for actual login so that the spec manages the session created by the controller. You can follow the ideas on this answer, but basically you need to authenticate with a given user. But that you are already doing, so maybe the problem you are having is not clear by the question.
One thing I noticed weird on your tests is that event is checked for some tests, but I can't see where it is defined. It's like you expected it to be set by rspec in some way. If that's the case, then that might be the problem you are having. For this kind of spec, you should load objects from the db to test if they were created, so after filling the form and saving the event, before testing the result, load it from the DB with
event = Event.last
and then probe it for the values stored.
Let me know if this makes sense and if this solves your problem. Otherwise, maybe try to clarify what are you trying to accomplish or post a backtrace of any error you are having.
Related
I'm having a weird issue where I'm testing a controller that has a procedure that uses caching. The test is failing, but if I do a binding.pry inside the method that does the caching, the test passes.
example of the method containing the caching and the binding.pry:
def method_example:
data = Rails.cache.fetch(cache_key) do
ProcedureService.new(params).generate
end
binding.pry
data
end
Example of the test:
it "reverts record amount" do
expect(record.amount).to eq((original_amount + other_amount).to_d)
end
The caching is done via redis_store.
When done in the development environment, it works fine. What I don't understand is why it is failing but passing when adding a stopper? It seems it could be something about the time it takes to fetch the cache
UPDATE
Using sleep, instead of binding.pry also makes the test pass, so I can assume this is a timing issue. What is the problem exactly? and how could I manage it?
I think this has to do with cashing enabled or not enabled in your tests:
you can set expectations like this with the current implementation in your example method:
expect(Rails).to receive_massage_change(:cashe, :fetch).and_return(expected_value)
you can also inject the ProcedureService instance to the method and set expectation on it like this:
procedure_service_instance = instance_double('ProcedureService', generate: some_value_you_want_to_be_returned)
expect(procedure_service_instance).to receive(:generate)
if you make your example method like this:
def method_example
data = Constant.fetch_from_cashe(cache_key)
procedure_service.generate
data
end
then you could git rid of receive_message_chain expectation and use:
expect(Constant).to receive(:fetch_from_cashe).with(cashe_key).and_return(expected_value)
expect_any_instance_of(ProcedureService).to receive(:generate){ some_fake_return_value }
also you can enable caching in your tests, check these links: link1, link2, link3
I do not know exactly where, and how your original is written, but based on the example method you provided, I think setting expectation on the methods that get sent would do the trick. and note that your goal is not to test rails cashing but to test that your code does use it as you want.
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!
I've been trying to figure this out for a long time, and can't figure it out.
I am using DelayedJob in my Rails app in order to run a script to fill out some forms on a website via a Mechanize script. However, after the job completes, I don't want any record of the entry to be stored in any database in my application, as there is no reason anyone should access it again.
The process works perfectly when I ran it as a simple background method within the controller's create method - that is, by calling #course.delay.scrape right after if #course.save. But now that I want to destroy the object right after the background job finishes, I believe I need to create a custom job, and am struggling with that.
I am aware that the DelayedJob documentation lists the method def after(job). In order to use that method, I need to create a custom job. I'm confused about how to create a custom job, as nearly every example I can find is for sending mass emails, whereas this is for a different purpose. I don't know how to get the script to run this way.
If you can help me with fixing up this code at all, that would be greatly appreciated! I've tried many variations, looking at as many examples as possible. I'm aware it has at least a few errors, but am not advanced enough to know what to change. This is the last thing I tried before throwing in the towel.
Here is my model (in models/course.rb):
class Course < ActiveRecord::Base
after_create :send_to_delayed_job
def scrape
...Mechanize script goes here ....
end
def send_to_delayed_job
Delayed::Job.enqueue CourseJob.new(self.id), :queue => 'mycoursequeue'
end
end
Here is my job (in models/course_job.rb):
class CourseJob < Struct.new(:course_id)
def perform
course = Course.find(self.id)
course.scrape
end
def after(job)
Course.destroy(params[:id])
end
end
Can we just have course.destroy as the last line of CourseJob#perform method?
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.
What's the best practices way to test that a model is valid in rails?
For example, if I have a User model that validates the uniqueness of an email_address property, how do I check that posting the form returned an error (or better yet, specifically returned an error for that field).
I feel like this should be something obvious, but as I'm quickly finding out, I still don't quite have the vocabulary required to effectively google ruby questions.
The easiest way would probably be:
class UserEmailAddressDuplicateTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase
def setup
#email = "test#example.org"
#user1, #user2 = User.create(:email => #email), User.new(:email => #email)
end
def test_user_should_not_be_valid_given_duplicate_email_addresses
assert !#user2.valid?
end
def test_user_should_produce_error_for_duplicate_email_address
# Test for the default error message.
assert_equal "has already been taken", #user2.errors.on(:email)
end
end
Of course it's possible that you don't want to create a separate test case for this behaviour, in which case you could duplicate the logic in the setup method and include it in both tests (or put it in a private method).
Alternatively you could store the first (reference) user in a fixture such as fixtures/users.yml, and simply instantiate a new user with a duplicate address in each test.
Refactor as you see fit!
http://thoughtbot.com/projects/shoulda/
Shoulda includes macros for testing things like validators along with many other things. Worth checking out for TDD.
errors.on is what you want
http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Errors.html#M002496
#obj.errors.on(:email) will return nil if field is valid, and the error messages either in a String or Array of Strings if there are one or more errors.
Testing the model via unit tests is, of course, step one. However, that doesn't necessarily guarantee that the user will get the feedback they need.
Section 4 of the Rails Guide on Testing has a lot of good information on functional testing (i.e. testing controllers and views). You have a couple of basic options here: check that the flash has a message in it about the error, or use assert_select to find the actual HTML elements that should have been generated in case of an error. The latter is really the only way to test that the user will actually get the message.