I inherited a number of FactoryGirl factories that don't really work and I'm trying to bring them up to snuff. Part of that has been the use of FactoryGirl.lint. So far, however, I have been able to find which factories fail and, for any individual one, run
x = FactoryGirl.build :invalid_factory
x.valid? # returns false as expected
x.errors # prints out the validation errors for that object
What I'd like to do is avoid having to do that for each factory. Is there a way to quickly get FactoryGirl.lint to write out the errors which each invalid factory? A flag to pass, a parameter to set? The documentation is extremely sparse on .lint
Loop through FactoryGirl.factories to perform your check on each factory.
FactoryGirl.factories.map(&:name).each do |factory_name|
describe "#{factory_name} factory" do
# Test each factory
it "is valid" do
factory = FactoryGirl.build(factory_name)
if factory.respond_to?(:valid?)
# the lamba syntax only works with rspec 2.14 or newer; for earlier versions, you have to call #valid? before calling the matcher, otherwise the errors will be empty
expect(factory).to be_valid, lambda { factory.errors.full_messages.join("\n") }
end
end
This script from the FactoryGirl wiki shows how to automate the check with RSpec and use Guard to always verify factories are valid.
Related
I'm trying to mock Date.today.wday in a rake task in rspec.
Gem versions: RSpec 2.14.8 --- Rails 4.1.1 --- ruby 2.0.0
Here is a simplified fake version of my test to illustrate essentially what I'm trying to do:
describe "scheduler" do
describe ":thursday_invitations" do
let(:run_issue_invites) do
Rake::Task[:thursday_invitations].reenable
Rake.application.invoke_task :thursday_invitations
end
before do
Rake.application.rake_require 'tasks/scheduler'
Rake::Task.define_task(:environment)
Date.today.should_receive(:wday).and_return(4) ###MY NEMESIS CODE LINE
end
context "on thursday" do
it "issues invitations" do
expect(Date.today.wday).to eq(4) ###THE VERIFICATION TEST THAT KEEPS FAILING
run_issue_invites
expect(<other_stuff_to_test>).to <return_properly>
end
end
end
end
So, the real key of this is mocking out the Date.today.wday. Because I want to be able to run my spec on any day of the week, I need to mock/stub out this method to always return "4" (the day-number for Thursday in Rails). So, I initially setup my test to first verify that it is receiving a "4" (the assertion in the test). If today is, say, Friday (which it is) and I run the test, it fails saying that it expected "4" but got "5". That is, it is not returning the value that I want it to when I receive the method. I have tried stubbing with similar ineffective results. Normally, mocking is a breeze, but what seems to be the hangup is .wday which operates on Date.today.
Because this is a rake task (which I'm not as familiar with mocking), I may have to specify something further, but I haven't been able to get to the bottom of it...
Let me know if you need any other clarifying information.
I believe the reason you're not seeing the behavior you expect is that the object you are mocking is the not the same object under test.
In a Rails 4+ environment, this is what I see on the rails console:
[1]> Date.today.object_id
70104549170200
[2]> Date.today.object_id
70104552970360
The fact that the object_id is different in subsequent calls to Date.today means that each call returns a new object. So Date.today.should_receive(:wday).and_return(4) is setting an expectation on an object that will never be used again.
You'll need to rewrite your spec to ensure the same object is returned by Date.today each time. Here's one solution, omitting other parts of your example for clarity:
let!(:today) { Date.today }
before do
Date.stub(:today).and_return(today)
today.should_receive(:wday).and_return(4)
end
it "issues invitations" do
expect(Date.today.wday).to eq(4)
end
I'm just getting started with feature specs using RSpec (and Capybara). I'm testing my ActiveAdmin dashboard and I want to check that all panels have an orders table as shown in this snippet:
feature 'admin dashboard', type: :feature do
def panels
page.all('.column .panel')
end
describe 'all panels' do
it 'have an orders table' do
expect(panels).to all(have_css('table.orders tbody'))
end
end
end
I've used the all matcher a lot in my unit tests but it doesn't appear to work when wrapping Capybara's have_css matcher because I'm getting the following error:
Failure/Error: expect(panels).to all(have_css('table.orders tbody'))
TypeError:
no implicit conversion of Capybara::RackTest::CSSHandlers into String
Am I correct in my assumption that RSpec's built-in all matcher should work with other matchers as well?
Note: I'm using describe and it instead of feature and scenario in this instance because I'm testing output rather than user interaction scenarios (see my other question).
Unfortunately there is a conflict between RSpec's all and Capybara's all see Capybara Issue 1396. The all that you are calling is actually Capybara's all.
Solution 1 - Call BuiltIn::All Directly
The quickest solution would be to call RSpec's all method directly (or at least that code that it executes.
The expectation will work if you use RSpec::Matchers::BuiltIn::All.new instead of all:
expect(panels).to RSpec::Matchers::BuiltIn::All.new(have_css('table.orders tbody'))
Solution 2 - Redefine all
Calling the BuiltIn:All directly does not read nicely so might get annoying if used often. An alternative would be to re-define the all method to be RSpec's all method. To do this, add the module and configuration:
module FixAll
def all(expected)
RSpec::Matchers::BuiltIn::All.new(expected)
end
end
RSpec.configure do |c|
c.include FixAll
end
With the change, the all in the following line will behave like RSpec's all method.
expect(panels).to all(have_css('table.orders tbody'))
Note that if you want to use Capybara's all method, you would now always need to call it using the session (ie page):
# This will work because "page.all" is used
expect(page.all('table').length).to eq(2)
# This will throw an exception since "all" is used
expect(all('table').length).to eq(2)
I used a very similar approach to the accepted answer, but in a Cucumber environment I was getting errors about RSpec.configure not existing. Also, I wanted to call the matcher something besides all so that I could use them both without conflicts. This is what I ended up with
# features/support/rspec_each.rb
module RSpecEach
def each(expected)
RSpec::Matchers::BuiltIn::All.new(expected)
end
end
World(RSpecEach) # extends the Cucumber World environment
Now I can do things like:
expect(page.all('#employees_by_dept td.counts')).to each(have_text('1'))
I'm using RSpec and I want to get result (passed or not), class name, test name (or description) and error message (if present) of each test after once it finished.
So here is a pretty simple code
describe MyClass do
after :each do
#how do I know a test passed, its name, class name and error message?
end
it "should be true" do
5.should be 5
end
it "should be false" do
5.should be 6
end
end
Your suggestions?
There are a few formatters for test output that can show you which tests passed/failed/pending, and it sounds like you are interested in the one called documentation.
In order to make this formatter available for all your rspec files, create a file called .rspec with content:
--color # I just like this one for more easily read output
--formatter documentation
This means that when you run a test suite like you have above you will see:
MyClass
should be true
should be false (Failed - 1)
# Individual output for each error would show up down here
Reference: https://www.relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-core/v/2-11/docs/formatters/custom-formatters
You can get extra information from formatters, but since after hooks are potential points of failure, they don't expose failure information themselves.
See https://www.relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-core/v/2-11/docs/formatters/custom-formatters and https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/blob/master/lib/rspec/core/formatters/base_formatter.rb
I've got a situation where I need to validate some regular expressions.
So, during my application run, I may want to test that a particular regex:
Contains no spaces
Contains only a certain number of capture groups
Does not use certain characters
Only contains a certain number of wildcards
rspec seems like the perfect tool for doing this. I realize that it's typically used to test application interfaces, assumptions and logic before an application is run, however. But, the natural syntax combined with the automatic reporting output would be nice to have.
Questions:
Is this an appropriate use of rspec?
How can one call a description from within a running application?
Or, should I abandon this approach and simply write methods within my class to perform the validations?
Using rspec in this way is highly discouraged and unusual. You should leave testing code in a :test group in your Gemfile and not reference it in your app.
Instead, use rails validations that your field matches a regex format, and then write tests in rspec to verify your validations.
This is definitely something new: using rspec inside rails for validation. But for specific problems one tends to propose to use a DSL, and as such rspec is a DSL which might just perfectly suited for your job.
So if that is the case: why not, yes, go ahead. Be creative and find new ways to use the tools you have.
Just a small warning: from the few points you marked, the complexity does not seem to be too big, so make sure you are not using a bazooka to kill a fly. Rspec is a big and very powerful tool, tying in rspec to run during the rails process might not be entirely straightforward.
If you want to generate a report, you could use the global after(:all) { puts "report goes here" } or after(:each). If you expect some of your data to blow up your tests, you can test for .should raise_exception. I imagine you'd be writing lots of exception handling to keep the expected failures out of the output. Logging the results to a database or a file might also be annoying. If you can, describe the test that you are doing on the data and then just parse the output of rspec at the end.
class Car
attr_accessor :doors
end
describe "Car" do
it "should have doors" do
Car.new.should respond_to(:doors)
fail("failing intentionally")
end
it "should pass this easily" do
Car.new should_not be nil
end
after(:all) { puts "report here" }
end
You can see below that I have a description of the test that failed.
$ rspec rspec_fail.rb
F.report here
Failures:
1) Car should have doors
Failure/Error: fail("failing intentionally")
RuntimeError:
failing intentionally
# ./rspec_fail.rb:9:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>'
Finished in 0.00052 seconds
2 examples, 1 failure
I would be easy enough to just make a report of the failures if this was testing text and regex's. Failure/Error: fail("Data has spaces") etc.
Similar to the problem described here:
http://rpheath.com/posts/411-how-to-use-factory-girl-with-rspec
in Short (shorten'd code):
spec_helper:
config.use_transactional_fixtures = true
config.use_instantiated_fixtures = false
factories.rb:
Factory.define :state do
f.name "NY"
end
in my spec
before(:each) do
#static_model = Factory(:state) # with validate uniqueness of state name
end
error:
duplicate entry name "NY" etc.
Question:
Shouldn't rspec clear database before each spec example and hence not throwing duplicate entry errors?
Things i think off:
do you use rake spec to run your testsuite: that builds up the database from scratch (to make sure nothing is sticking)
do you use, anywhere, a before (:all) ? Because whatever you create inside a before :all should be deleted again in a after :all or it keeps on existing.
Question: Shouldn't rspec clear database before each spec example and hence not throwing duplicate entry errors?
RSpec with DatabaseCleaner or RSpec Rails with use_transactional_fixtures will clear the DB as long as your created the data in the example itself. before :all do ... end is considered outside of the example, because the data remains untouched across multiple examples. Whatever you create in before :all you have to delete in after :all.
In order to delete whatever you create automatically use before :each do ... end. Be aware the same data will be created and removed 10 times if you have 10 examples. The difference between before :all and before :each is better explained here: rails rspec before all vs before each
Some more possible causes:
There's still a states.yml fixture sitting around
Someone played around on script/console test and forgot to clean up afterwards.
You might also find it's because you haven't wrapped the statement in:
describe "what it should do" do
#static_model = Factory(:state) # with validate uniqueness of state name
end
I discovered that was the change that solved this problem:
Why isn't factory_girl operating transactionally for me? - rows remain in database after tests
I have had similar questions about what sort of starting state one can expect when using FG and RSpec.
While I too wait for clarity, Database Cleaner could be a good fix: http://rubydoc.info/gems/database_cleaner/0.6.7/frames
hth -
Perry
When you use Factory(:state) wich is a shortcut to Factory.create(:state), factory_girl returns you a saved object.
Use Factory.build(:state) instead.
Dude maybe your yaml fixtures from regular unit tests get mixed into your rspec?