A logged in user has access to a resource and can get there in different ways. I want to have an example group, that each test for the same expectation.
I put an page.should have_content("...") expectation in an after(:each) block, but that is not such a good solution: If I declare it pending, it fails anyway. And if it fails, the error appears (at first) white.
How should I write example groups that each have the same expectation?
It sounds like you want a shared example group:
describe 'foo' do
shared_examples "bar" do
it 'should ...' do
end
end
context "when viewing in the first way" do
before(:each) do
...
end
it_behaves_like 'bar'
end
context "when viewing in the second way" do
before(:each) do
...
end
it_behaves_like 'bar'
end
end
Within the before blocks you set things up so that the action is taken out in the correct way. Another way of doing this is to have your shared examples call a do_foo method and provide different implementations of do_foo in each context.
You can also have shared contexts if what you want to share is the setup stuff.
Related
Let's say I have various RSpec context blocks to group tests with similar data scenarios.
feature "User Profile" do
context "user is active" do
before(:each) { (some setup) }
# Various tests
...
end
context "user is pending" do
before(:each) { (some setup) }
# Various tests
...
end
context "user is deactivated" do
before(:each) { (some setup) }
# Various tests
...
end
end
Now I'm adding a new feature and I'd like to add a simple scenario that verifies behavior when I click a certain link on the user's page
it "clicking help redirects to the user's help page" do
click_on foo_button
expect(response).to have('bar')
end
Ideally I'd love to add this test for all 3 contexts because I want to be sure that it performs correctly under different data scenarios. But the test itself doesn't change from context to context, so it seems repetitive to type it all out 3 times.
What are some alternatives to DRY up this test set? Can I stick the new test in some module or does RSpec have some built in functionality to let me define it once and call it from each context block?
Thanks!
You can use shared_examples ... define them in spec/support/shared_examples.rb
shared_examples "redirect_help" do
it "clicking help redirects to the user's help page" do
click_on foo_button
expect(response).to have('bar')
end
end
Then in each of your contexts just enter...
it_behaves_like "redirect_help"
You can even pass a block to it_behaves_like and then perform that block with the action method, the block being unique to each context.
Your shared_example might look like...
shared_examples "need_sign_in" do
it "redirects to the log in" do
session[:current_user_id] = nil
action
response.should render_template 'sessions/new'
end
end
And in your context you'd call it with the block...
describe "GET index" do
it_behaves_like "need_sign_in" do
let(:action) {get :index}
end
...
I want to add context into my feature rspec, but I am not sure what makes sense between context and scenario.
Here is what I have so far:
feature 'As an admin I manage the orders of the system' do
context 'Logged in user who is an admin' do
before(:each) do
admin = create(:admin_user)
login_as(admin, :scope => :user)
end
scenario 'User sees all the orders' do
visit admin_orders_path
expect(page).to have_content('List of orders')
end
end
context 'Logged in user who is not an admin' do
before(:each) do
user = create(:user)
login_as(user, :scope => :user)
end
scenario 'User cannot see the orders' do
visit admin_orders_path
expect(current_path).to eq('/')
end
end
end
Does this makes sense, or I should decide between using scenario or context, but not both together?
The way I am thinking my tests is the following:
Feature specs are high-level tests for testing the whole "picture" - functionality of your application.
So, core functionality of my app: features with scenarios inside.
Unit tests: describe and it.
You can use context in both though.
From the documentation:
The feature and scenario correspond to describe and it, respectively. These methods are simply aliases that allow feature specs to
read more as customer tests and acceptance tests.
So, in your case I would do the following:
feature 'As an admin I manage the orders of the system' do
context 'user is logged in as' do
before(:each) do
user = create(:user)
login_as(user, :scope => :user)
end
scenario 'an admin, can see all the orders' do
visit admin_orders_path
expect(page).to have_content('List of orders')
end
scenario 'not an admin, cannot see the orders' do
visit admin_orders_path
expect(current_path).to eq('/')
end
end
One context, two scenarios for the user. Also, I would think a little bit more about the description of the feature. Hope that helps and doens't confuse you more!
Also, I like to see my tests like the "heartbeat" of my app. First, you go from feature testing (outside, core functionality) and then you go inside(unit test). And that thing is repeating all the time, like a "heartbeat"
According to the docs:
The feature and scenario DSL correspond to describe and it,
respectively. These methods are simply aliases that allow feature specs to
read more as customer tests and acceptance tests.
You can simply replace describe (or context) with feature when writing feature specs. The feature statement should work when nested, like describe.
I have a controller spec like this :
describe "#create" do
before { post 'create', params }
context "when the artist is valid" do
before { allow(artist).to receive(:save).and_return(true) }
it { expect(page).to redirect_to(root_path) }
it { expect(notifier).to have_received(:notify) }
end
end
This is a simple spec but It doesn't work because the describe's before block is executed before the context's before block. So, the result of artist.save is not stubed when the create action is called.
It tried to do this :
describe "first describe" do
before { puts 2 }
describe "second describe" do
before { puts 1 }
it "simple spec" do
expect(1).to eq 1
end
end
end
I see the "2" before the "1". I'm not sure but I think it was working with previous versions.
I know, I can do this :
describe "#create" do
context "when the artist is valid" do
before { allow(artist).to receive(:save).and_return(true) }
it "redirect to the root path" do
post 'create', params
expect(page).to redirect_to(root_path)
end
it "do notifications" do
post :create, params
expect(notifier).to have_received(:notify)
end
end
end
But I think it's less clean.
I found, on this page, http://rubydoc.info/github/rspec/rspec-core/RSpec/Core/Hooks#before-instance_method than the order should be this :
before(:suite) # declared in RSpec.configure
before(:all) # declared in RSpec.configure
before(:all) # declared in a parent group
before(:all) # declared in the current group
before(:each) # declared in RSpec.configure
before(:each) # declared in a parent group
before(:each) # declared in the current group
It's not the case on this example.
I'm not sure but I think it was working with older versions of rspec.
Is there a solution?
I would strongly recommend against you changing the order of hooks in rspec. That will make your app non-standard and Rails is build on standards and having things work as expected.
Everything you're describing it "as designed". Outer before blocks are always called before inner blocks.
Your example that you feel is "less clean" is the standard way to do controller specs. I actually encourage you to do it this way so that it is more maintainable/readable. It does not look unclean to me at all.
That said, there are some options:
You can use a method. I have more than once had a method that was do_post or something similar
You can use a let block which is initialized lazily. I would find it unlcean if it relied on other before blocks running first, but it's an option.
You can define subject. https://www.relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-core/v/2-6/docs/subject/explicit-subject
I know this would be a really newbie question, but I had to ask it ...
How do I chain different conditions using logic ORs and ANDs and Rspec?
In my example, the method should return true if my page has any of those messages.
def should_see_warning
page.should have_content(_("You are not authorized to access this page."))
OR
page.should have_content(_("Only administrators or employees can do that"))
end
Thanks for help!
You wouldn't normally write a test that given the same inputs/setup produces different or implicit outputs/expectations.
It can be a bit tedious but it's best to separate your expected responses based on the state at the time of the request. Reading into your example; you seem to be testing if the user is logged in or authorized then showing a message. It would be better if you broke the different states into contexts and tested for each message type like:
# logged out (assuming this is the default state)
it "displays unauthorized message" do
get :your_page
response.should have_content(_("You are not authorized to access this page."))
end
context "Logged in" do
before
#user = users(:your_user) # load from factory or fixture
sign_in(#user) # however you do this in your env
end
it "displays a permissions error to non-employees" do
get :your_page
response.should have_content(_("Only administrators or employees can do that"))
end
context "As an employee" do
before { #user.promote_to_employee! } # or somesuch
it "works" do
get :your_page
response.should_not have_content(_("Only administrators or employees can do that"))
# ... etc
end
end
end
I have an Ruby on Rails 3 admin_controller with the default set of CRUD, index and so on methods. I'd like to test each of these for certain assertions with rspec.
Like response.should render_template("layouts/some_layout") or tests that it should require login.
Copy-pasting that test into the group of tests for each method is a lot of duplication. IMO it makes little sense to have an
it 'should require login' do
Duplicated several times troughout that test.
Is there a simple way to run a test on a list of methods? Say defined_methods.each do |method| it 'should' .... of some sort?
Is this a good way in the first place? Or am I taking a wrong route in the first place?
Given that you really want all those assertions, have you considered shared example groups?
shared_examples_for "an action that requires authentication" do
it "should render successfuly" do
sign_in(user)
response.should be_success # or whatever
end
it "should deny access" do
# don't sign_in the user
# assert access was denied
end
end
shared_examples_for "another behaviour" do
# ...
end
let(:user) { create_user }
describe "#index" do
before(:each) { get :index }
it_behaves_like "an action that requires authentication"
it_behaves_like "another behaviour"
end
describe "#show" do
before(:each) { get :show }
it_behaves_like "an action that requires authentication"
end
# ...
Of course before writing large number of specs for a basic functionality you should always check if it isn't already tested by the library that is providing the functionality (e.g. checking for the rendered template, if it is handled by rails's implicit rendering, might be a bit overkill).
If you wanted to go down the route of iteratively testing each public method in the controller, you could do something like:
SomeController.public_instance_methods(false).each do |method|
it "should do something"
end
However, I think a shared example group (see about half way down this page: http://rspec.info/documentation/) would be prettier. If it were extracted so it could be used across all your controller specs, it'll be even nicer..
shared_examples_for "admin actions" do
it "should require login"
end
Then in each controller spec:
describe SomeController do
it_should_behave_like "admin actions"
end
Just add it to your test_helper.rb, something like:
def requires_login
...
end