I'm following a TDD approach to building our app, and creating a whole bunch of service objects, keeping models strictly for data management.
Many of the services I've built interface with models. Take for example MakePrintsForRunner:
class MakePrintsForRunner
def initialize(runner)
#runner = runner
end
def from_run_report(run_report)
run_report.photos.each do |photo|
Print.create(photo: photo, subject: #runner)
end
end
end
I appreciate the create method could arguably be abstracted into the Print model, but let's keep it as is for now.
Now, in the spec for MakePrintsForRunner I'm keen to avoid including spec_helper, since I want my service specs to be super fast.
Instead, I stub out the Print class like this:
describe RunnerPhotos do
let(:runner) { double }
let(:photo_1) { double(id: 1) }
let(:photo_2) { double(id: 2) }
let(:run_report) { double(photos: [photo_1, photo_2]) }
before(:each) do
#service = RunnerPhotos.new(runner)
end
describe "#create_print_from_run_report(run_report)" do
before(:each) do
class Print; end
allow(Print).to receive(:create)
#service.create_print_from_run_report(run_report)
end
it "creates a print for every run report photo associating it with the runners" do
expect(Print).to have_received(:create).with(photo: photo_1, subject: runner)
expect(Print).to have_received(:create).with(photo: photo_2, subject: runner)
end
end
end
And all goes green. Perfect!
... Not so fast. When I run the whole test suite, depending on the seed order, I am now running into problems.
It appears that the class Print; end line can sometimes overwrite print.rb's definition of Print (which obviously inherits from ActiveRecord) and therefore fail a bunch of tests at various points in the suite. One example is:
NoMethodError:
undefined method 'reflect_on_association' for Print:Class
This makes for an unhappy suite.
Any advice on how to tackle this. While this is one example, there are numerous times where a service is directly referencing a model's method, and I've taken the above approach to stubbing them out. Is there a better way?
You don't have to create the Print class, simply use the one that is loaded, and stub it:
describe RunnerPhotos do
let(:runner) { double }
let(:photo_1) { double(id: 1) }
let(:photo_2) { double(id: 2) }
let(:run_report) { double(photos: [photo_1, photo_2]) }
before(:each) do
#service = RunnerPhotos.new(runner)
end
describe "#create_print_from_run_report(run_report)" do
before(:each) do
allow(Print).to receive(:create)
#service.create_print_from_run_report(run_report)
end
it "creates a print for every run report photo associating it with the runners" do
expect(Print).to have_received(:create).with(photo: photo_1, subject: runner)
expect(Print).to have_received(:create).with(photo: photo_2, subject: runner)
end
end
end
Edit
If you really need to create the class in the scope of this test alone, you can undefine it at the end of the test (from How to undefine class in Ruby?):
before(:all) do
unless Object.constants.include?(:Print)
class TempPrint; end
Print = TempPrint
end
end
after(:all) do
if Object.constants.include?(:TempPrint)
Object.send(:remove_const, :Print)
end
end
I appreciate the create method could arguably be abstracted into the Print model, but let's keep it as is for now.
Let's see what happens if we ignore this line.
Your difficulty in stubbing a class is a sign that the design is inflexible. Consider passing an already-instantiated object to either the constructor of MakePrintsForRunner or the method #from_run_report. Which to choose depends on the permanence of the object - will the configuration of printing need to change at run time? If not, pass to the constructor, if so, pass to the method.
So for our step 1:
class MakePrintsForRunner
def initialize(runner, printer)
#runner = runner
#printer = printer
end
def from_run_report(run_report)
run_report.photos.each do |photo|
#printer.print(photo: photo, subject: #runner)
end
end
end
Now it's interesting that we're passing two objects to the constructor, yet #runner is only ever passed to the #print method of #printer. This could be a sign that #runner doesn't belong here at all:
class MakePrints
def initialize(printer)
#printer = printer
end
def from_run_report(run_report)
run_report.photos.each do |photo|
#printer.print(photo)
end
end
end
We've simplified MakePrintsForRunner into MakePrints. This only takes a printer at construction time, and a report at method invocation time. The complexity of which runner to use is now the responsibility of the new 'printer' role.
Note that the printer is a role, not necessarily a single class. You can swap the implementation for different printing strategies.
Testing should now be simpler:
photo1 = double('photo')
photo2 = double('photo')
run_report = double('run report', photos: [photo1, photo2])
printer = double('printer')
action = MakePrints.new(printer)
allow(printer).to receive(:print)
action.from_run_report(run_report)
expect(printer).to have_received(:print).with(photo1)
expect(printer).to have_received(:print).with(photo2)
These changes might not suit your domain. Perhaps a runner shouldn't be attached to a printer for more than one print. In this case, perhaps you should take a different next step.
Another future refactoring might be for #from_run_report to become #from_photos, since the report isn't used for anything but gathering photos. At this point the class looks a bit anaemic, and might disappear altogether (eaching over photos and calling #print isn't too interesting).
Now, how to test a printer? Integrate with ActiveRecord. This is your adapter to the outside world, and as such should be integration tested. If all it really does is create a record, I probably wouldn't even bother testing it - it's just a wrapper around an ActiveRecord call.
Class names are just constants so you could use stub_const to stub an undefined constant and return a double.
So instead of defining a class in your before(:each) block do this:
before(:each) do
stub_const('Print', double(create: nil))
#service.create_print_from_run_report(run_report)
end
Related
I am trying to write two RSpec tests for two different problems that are much more advanced that what I'm used to writing.
What I'm trying to test within my controller:
def index
#buildings ||= building_class.active.where(place: current_place)
end
My attempt at writing the RSpec test:
describe 'GET :index' do
it "assigns #buildings" do
#buildings ||= building_class.active.where(place: current_place)
get :index
expect(assigns(:buildings)).to eq([building])
end
end
This test failed and wouldn't even run so I know I'm missing something.
My second test is needing to test the returned value of a class method. Here is what I am needing to test within the controller:
def class_name
ABC::Accountant::Business
end
Here is my attempt at testing this method:
describe "class name returns ABC::Accountant::Business" do
subject do
expect(subject.class_name).to eq(ABC::Accountant::Business)
end
end
For the first test I would do something like this:
First, I would move that .active.where(place: current_place) to a scope (I'm guessing building_class returns Building or something like that):
class Building << ApplicationRecord
scope :active_in, -> (place) { active.where(place: place)
Then it's easier to stub for the test
describe 'GET :index' do
it "assigns #buildings" do
scoped_buildings = double(:buildings)
expect(Building).to receive(:active_in).and_return(scoped_buildings)
get :index
expect(assigns(:buildings)).to eq(scoped_buildings)
end
end
Then your controller will do
#buildings ||= building_class.active_in(current_place)
This way you are testing two things: that the controller actually calls the scope and that the controller assigns the returned value on the #buildings variable (you don't really need to test the actual buidlings, you can test the scope on the model spec).
Personally, I feel like it would be better to do something like #buildings = current_place.active_buildings using the same idea of the scope to test that you are getting the active buildings of the current place.
EDIT: if you can't modify your controller, then the stubbing is a little different and it implies some chaining of methods that I don't like to explicitly test.
scoped_buildings = double(:buildings)
controller.stub_chain(:building_class, :active, :where).and_return(scoped_building)
get :index
expect(assings(:buildings)).to eq scoped_buildings
Note that now your test depends on a specific implementation and testing implementation is a bad practice, one should test behaviour and not implementation.
For the second, I guess something like this should work:
describe ".class_name" do
it "returns ABC::Accountant::Business" do
expect(controller.class_name).to eq(ABC::Accountant::Business)
end
end
IMHO, that the method's name if confusing, class_name gives the idea that it returns a string, you are not returnin a name, you are returning a class. Maybe you can change that method to resource_class or something less confusing.
I've realized that the way I've been writing tests is producing false positives.
Say I have this source code
class MyClass
def foo
end
def bar
1
end
end
The foo method does nothing, but say I want to write a test that makes sure it calls bar under the hood (even though it doesn't). Furthermore, I want to ensure that the result of calling bar directly is 1.
it "test" do
inst = MyClass.new
expect(inst).to receive(:bar).and_call_original
inst.foo
expect(inst.bar).to eq(1)
end
So this is returning true, but I want it to return false.
I want this line:
expect(inst).to receive(:bar).and_call_original
to not take into account the fact that in my test case I'm calling inst.bar directly. I want it to only look at the internal of the foo method.
You'r defining 2 separate test cases within one test case. You should change it to 2 separate tests.
describe '#bar' do
it "uses #foo" do
inst = MyClass.new
allow(inst).to receive(:foo).and_call_original
inst.bar
expect(inst).to have_received(:foo)
end
it "returns 1" do
inst = MyClass.new
# if you don't need to mock it, don't do it
# allow(inst).to receive(:foo).and_call_original
expect(inst.bar).to eq(1)
end
# if you really, really wan't to do it your way, you can specify the amount of calls
it "test" do
inst = MyClass.new
allow(inst).to receive(:foo).and_call_original
inst.foo
expect(inst.bar).to eq(1)
expect(inst).to have_received(:foo).twice # or replace .twice with .at_least(2).times
end
end
Stubs are typically used in two ways:
Check if the method was called i.e. expect_any_instance_of(MyClass).to receive(:foo) in this case what it returns is not really imortant
To simulate behaviour allow_any_instance_of(MyClass).to receive(:method).and_return(fake_response). This is a great way to avoid database interactions and or isolate out other dependencies in tests.
For example in a test that requires data setup of a Rails ActiveRecord model Product that has a has many association comments:
let(:product) { Product.new }
let(:comments) { [Comment.new(text: "Foo"), Comment.new(text: "Bar")] }
before :each do
allow_any_instnace_of(Product).to recieve(:comments).and_return(comments)
Now in any of your it blocks when you call product.comments you will get back an array of comments you can use in the tests without having gone near your database which makes the test orders of magnitudes faster.
When you are using the stub to check if the method was called the key is to declare the expectation before you perform the opreation that calls the method. For example:
expect_any_instance_of(Foo).to recieve(:bar).exactly(1).times.with('hello')
Foo.new.bar('hello') # will return true
Let's say we have class:
class Post
def save
# implementation
end
def self.find(id)
#implementation
end
end
I struggle with testing #save and .find, I've:
describe '#save' do
it 'saves the post' do
subject.save
created = Post.find(subject.id)
expect(created).to eq(subject)
end
end
describe '.find' do
it 'finds the post' do
subject.save
created = Post.find(subject.id)
expect(created).to eq(subject)
end
end
In case of #save method I'd like to check side effect, in case of .find I'd like to test returned value. How to cope with this case without duplicating specs ?
In this case, to isolate the save and find actions, you need to mock the repository.
Whether you are writing to a DB, a file-system, cache, or whatever - you can mock it to either expect the saving feature, or set it up (before the beginning of the test) to make sure find works.
For most repository implementations there are gems to mock them (Factory Girl for relational databases, FakeFS for file-system), but you can roll your own if you have some exotic repository no one has heard of.
This way you test save without using find, or vice versa.
I am finding it very hard to stub certain attributes of a model on a controller test. I want to make sure to stub as little as possible.
EDIT: I have been demoved of using stubs for such integration. I understood that the stubs won't reach the action call. The correct question would now be:
How can one use mocks and stubs to simulate a certain state in a Rails controller test?
So I've reached something like the following:
Spec
require 'spec_helper'
describe TeamsController do
let(:team) { FactoryGirl.create :team }
context "having questions" do
let(:competition) { FactoryGirl.create :competition }
it "allows a team to enter a competition" do
post(:enter_competition, id: team.id, competition_id: competition.id)
assigns(:enroll).team.should == team
assigns(:enroll).competition.should == competition
end
end
# ...
end
Factories
FactoryGirl.define do
factory :team do
name "Ruby team"
end
factory :competition, class: Competition do
name "Competition with questions"
after_create do |competition|
competition.
stub(:questions).
and_return([
"something"
])
end
end
factory :empty_competition, class: Competition do
name "Competition without questions"
questions []
after_create do |competition|
competition.stub(:questions).and_return []
end
end
end
Production code
class TeamsController < ApplicationController
def enter_competition
#team = Team.find params[:id]
#competition = Competition.find params[:competition_id]
#enroll = #team.enter_competition #competition
render :nothing => true
end
end
class Team < ActiveRecord::Base
def enter_competition competition
raise Competition::Closed if competition.questions.empty?
enroll = Enroll.new team: self, competition: competition
enroll.save
enroll
end
end
When I run the test, the questions attribute comes as being nil and so the test fails in the model when checking for nil.empty?.
Why isn't the stub being used so that the state of that message is correctly used? I expected that #competition.questions would be [ "question" ] but instead I get nil.
The problem you're running into is that stub works on an instance of a Ruby object; it doesn't affect all ActiveRecord objects that represent the same row.
The quickest way to fix your test would be to add this to your test, before the post:
Competition.stub(:find).and_return(competition)
The reason that's necessary is that Competition.find will return a fresh Competition object that doesn't have questions stubbed out, even though it represents the same database row. Stubbing find as well means that it will return the same instance of Competition, which means the controller will see the stubbed questions.
I'd advise against having that stub in your factory, though, because it won't be obvious what's stubbed as a developer using the factory, and because it means you'll never be able to test the real questions method, which you'll want to do in the Competition unit test as well as any integration tests.
Long story short: if you stub out a method on an instance of your model, you also need to stub out find for that model (or whatever class method you're using to find it), but it's not a good idea to have such stubs in a factory definition.
When you call create on FactoryGirl, it creates database records which you then retrieve back in your controller code. So the instances you get (#team, #competition) are pure ActiveRecord, without any methods stubbed out.
Personally I would write you test like this (not touching database at all):
let(:team) { mock_model(Team) }
let(:competition) { mock_model(Competition) }
before do
Team.stub(:find) { team }
Competition.stub(:find) { competition }
end
and then in your test something like this:
it "should call enter_competition on #team with #competition" do
team.should_receive(:enter_competition).with(competition)
post :enter_competition, id: 7, competition_id: 10
I don't really understand what your controller is supposed to do or what are you testing for that matter, sorry :(
I'm trying to decide how to test a method that simply calculates an average of values on associated records. I'm concerned about testing the implementation vs the actual result returned.
Say I have the following models...
class User
has_many :interviews
def interview_grade
interviews.average(:score).round unless interviews.empty?
end
end
class Interview
belongs_to :user
end
And in user_spec.rb I have...
describe "interview_grade" do
let(:user) {User.new}
context "when the user has interviews" do
before { user.stub_chain(:interviews, :empty?){false} }
it "should return an average of the appraisal ratings" do
user.interviews.should_receive(:average).with(:score).and_return(3.2)
user.work_history_grade.should == 3
end
end
context "when the user has no interviews" do
before {Interview.destroy_all}
it "should return nil" do
user.interview_grade.should be_nil
end
end
end
These tests pass but it feels fragile to me. What if interview_grade should actually calculate the sum of the scores (for example). As I'm just testing that a particular chain of methods is called, this passing test wouldn't tell me that the result is actually incorrect.
I have tried stubbing user.interviews in order to setup the available scores for the test to work with but this seems tricky to do in Rails 3 due to the way associations are lazy loaded. i.e. I can't just create an array of Interview objects because it doesn't respond to the average method.
Any advice greatly appreciated.
Coming back to this 3 years later. I would would approach it entirely differently.
The benefit of the code below is that in order to write tests for InterviewGrader I would no longer need to worry about how the scores are attained.
I just give it the scores and test it gives me the correct output.
Also I would never need to worry about the underlying implementation of InterviewGrader. However, if the logic was changed at a later date, the tests would fail.
The new scores method on User would need to be tested separately.
class InterviewGrader
def self.run scores
new(scores).run
end
attr_reader :scores
def initialize(scores)
#scores = scores
end
def run
scores.inject { |sum, score|
sum + score
}.to_f / number_of_scores
end
private
def number_of_scores
scores.length
end
end
class User
has_many :interviews
def scores
interviews.map(&:score)
end
def interview_grade
InterviewGrader.run(scores)
end
end
class Interview
belongs_to :user
end
This is incorrect usage of stubbing and mocking.
In this case you should only test, that interview_grade works, when average returns nil (and this is only case interviews.empty? is used).
The average method is tested by rails itself. round method by ruby tests (i guess). So you not need to test this methods. This is a general idea to test only your own code.
And if you want to test, how interview_grade is calculated, you should create test data (with fixtures or factories). Because you should test separate (in some case) part of system, and in this case separation is wrong: interviews.average and interviews.empty? are dependent in your code, but in spec they independent.
def interview_grade
interviews.average(:score).try(:round)
end
If you rewrite your method in this way, you no need in stubbing and mocking