I am beginner to RSpec. I am having a model teacher that has_many :lessons. Here is my FactoryGirls records:
spec/factories/lessons.rb
FactoryGirl.define do
factory :lesson do
title "Rspec test"
description "test description"
company_name "narola pvt"
association :teacher
location "Zwanenplein 34"
days_to_pay 2
end
end
spec/factories/teachers.rb
FactoryGirl.define do
factory :teacher do
first_name "Teacher's name"
last_name "Teacher's last name"
address "los angeles"
city "california"
zip_code "12345"
country "USA"
birthdate nil
phone nil
password "password"
email { "example#{SecureRandom.uuid}#email.dummy" }
end
end
Following is my try with models test:
spec/models/teacher_spec.rb
require 'rails_helper'
RSpec.describe Teacher, type: :model do
let(:teacher) { FactoryGirl.create(:teacher) }
it "should have at least one lesson" do
config.expect_with(Lesson.where(teacher_id: teacher)){|c| c.syntax = :should}
end
end
I am willing to write a rspec test case to find if lesson exists for particular lesson.
Please try this:
it "should have at least one lesson" do
expect(Lesson.where(teacher_id: teacher.id)).to exist
end
Let me know if it's work for you. I haven't try this.
it "should have at least one lesson" do
expect(Lesson.where(teacher_id: teacher.id).exists?).to be_truthy
end
This would be faster because of the use of 'exists?' method compared to
expect(Lesson.where(teacher_id: teacher.id)).to exist
Underlying query execution due to use of 'exists?' the method is fast. More details are here ->
https://www.ombulabs.com/blog/benchmark/performance/rails/present-vs-any-vs-exists.html
I'm using scaffolding to generate rspec controller tests. By default, it creates the test as:
let(:valid_attributes) {
skip("Add a hash of attributes valid for your model")
}
describe "PUT update" do
describe "with valid params" do
let(:new_attributes) {
skip("Add a hash of attributes valid for your model")
}
it "updates the requested doctor" do
company = Company.create! valid_attributes
put :update, {:id => company.to_param, :company => new_attributes}, valid_session
company.reload
skip("Add assertions for updated state")
end
Using FactoryGirl, I've filled this in with:
let(:valid_attributes) { FactoryGirl.build(:company).attributes.symbolize_keys }
describe "PUT update" do
describe "with valid params" do
let(:new_attributes) { FactoryGirl.build(:company, name: 'New Name').attributes.symbolize_keys }
it "updates the requested company", focus: true do
company = Company.create! valid_attributes
put :update, {:id => company.to_param, :company => new_attributes}, valid_session
company.reload
expect(assigns(:company).attributes.symbolize_keys[:name]).to eq(new_attributes[:name])
This works, but it seems like I should be able to test all attributes, instead of just testing the changed name. I tried changing the last line to:
class Hash
def delete_mutable_attributes
self.delete_if { |k, v| %w[id created_at updated_at].member?(k) }
end
end
expect(assigns(:company).attributes.delete_mutable_attributes.symbolize_keys).to eq(new_attributes)
That almost worked, but I'm getting the following error from rspec having to do with BigDecimal fields:
-:latitude => #<BigDecimal:7fe376b430c8,'0.8137713195 830835E2',27(27)>,
-:longitude => #<BigDecimal:7fe376b43078,'-0.1270954650 1027958E3',27(27)>,
+:latitude => #<BigDecimal:7fe3767eadb8,'0.8137713195 830835E2',27(27)>,
+:longitude => #<BigDecimal:7fe3767ead40,'-0.1270954650 1027958E3',27(27)>,
Using rspec, factory_girl, and scaffolding is incredibly common, so my questions are:
What is a good example of an rspec and factory_girl test for a PUT update with valid params?
Is it necessary to use attributes.symbolize_keys and to delete the mutable keys? How can I get those BigDecimal objects to evaluate as eq?
Ok so this is how I do, I don't pretend to strictly follow the best practices, but I focus on precision of my tests, clarity of my code, and fast execution of my suite.
So let take example of a UserController
1- I do not use FactoryGirl to define the attributes to post to my controller, because I want to keep control of those attributes. FactoryGirl is useful to create record, but you always should set manually the data involved in the operation you are testing, it's better for readability and consistency.
In this regard we will manually define the posted attributes
let(:valid_update_attributes) { {first_name: 'updated_first_name', last_name: 'updated_last_name'} }
2- Then I define the attributes I expect for the updated record, it can be an exact copy of the posted attributes, but it can be that the controller do some extra work and we also want to test that. So let's say for our example that once our user updated his personal information our controller automatically add a need_admin_validation flag
let(:expected_update_attributes) { valid_update_attributes.merge(need_admin_validation: true) }
That's also where you can add assertion for attribute that must remain unchanged. Example with the field age, but it can be anything
let(:expected_update_attributes) { valid_update_attributes.merge(age: 25, need_admin_validation: true) }
3- I define the action, in a let block. Together with the previous 2 let I find it makes my specs very readable. And it also make easy to write shared_examples
let(:action) { patch :update, format: :js, id: record.id, user: valid_update_attributes }
4- (from that point everything is in shared example and custom rspec matchers in my projects) Time to create the original record, for that we can use FactoryGirl
let!(:record) { FactoryGirl.create :user, :with_our_custom_traits, age: 25 }
As you can see we manually set the value for age as we want to verify it did not change during the update action. Also, even if the factory already set the age to 25 I always overwrite it so my test won't break if I change the factory.
Second thing to note: here we use let! with a bang. That is because sometimes you may want to test your controller's fail action, and the best way to do that is to stub valid? and return false. Once you stub valid? you can't create records for the same class anymore, therefor let! with a bang would create the record before the stub of valid?
5- The assertions itself (and finally the answer to your question)
before { action }
it {
assert_record_values record.reload, expected_update_attributes
is_expected.to redirect_to(record)
expect(controller.notice).to eq('User was successfully updated.')
}
Summarize So adding all the above, this is how the spec looks like
describe 'PATCH update' do
let(:valid_update_attributes) { {first_name: 'updated_first_name', last_name: 'updated_last_name'} }
let(:expected_update_attributes) { valid_update_attributes.merge(age: 25, need_admin_validation: true) }
let(:action) { patch :update, format: :js, id: record.id, user: valid_update_attributes }
let(:record) { FactoryGirl.create :user, :with_our_custom_traits, age: 25 }
before { action }
it {
assert_record_values record.reload, expected_update_attributes
is_expected.to redirect_to(record)
expect(controller.notice).to eq('User was successfully updated.')
}
end
assert_record_values is the helper that will make your rspec simpler.
def assert_record_values(record, values)
values.each do |field, value|
record_value = record.send field
record_value = record_value.to_s if (record_value.is_a? BigDecimal and value.is_a? String) or (record_value.is_a? Date and value.is_a? String)
expect(record_value).to eq(value)
end
end
As you can see with this simple helper when we expect for a BigDecimal, we can just write the following, and the helper do the rest
let(:expected_update_attributes) { {latitude: '0.8137713195'} }
So at the end, and to conclude, when you have written your shared_examples, helpers, and custom matchers, you can keep your specs super DRY. As soon as you start repeating the same thing in your controllers specs find how you can refactor this. It may take time at first, but when its done you can write the tests for a whole controller in few minutes
And a last word (I can't stop, I love Rspec) here is how my full helper look like. It is usable for anything in fact, not just models.
def assert_records_values(records, values)
expect(records.length).to eq(values.count), "Expected <#{values.count}> number of records, got <#{records.count}>\n\nRecords:\n#{records.to_a}"
records.each_with_index do |record, index|
assert_record_values record, values[index], index: index
end
end
def assert_record_values(record, values, index: nil)
values.each do |field, value|
record_value = [field].flatten.inject(record) { |object, method| object.try :send, method }
record_value = record_value.to_s if (record_value.is_a? BigDecimal and value.is_a? String) or (record_value.is_a? Date and value.is_a? String)
expect_string_or_regexp record_value, value,
"#{"(index #{index}) " if index}<#{field}> value expected to be <#{value.inspect}>. Got <#{record_value.inspect}>"
end
end
def expect_string_or_regexp(value, expected, message = nil)
if expected.is_a? String
expect(value).to eq(expected), message
else
expect(value).to match(expected), message
end
end
This is the questioner posting. I had to go down the rabbit hole a bit in understanding multiple, overlapping issues here, so I just wanted to report back on the solution I found.
tldr; It's too much trouble trying to confirm that every important attribute comes back unchanged from a PUT. Just check that the changed attribute is what you expect.
The issues I encountered:
FactoryGirl.attributes_for does not return all values, so FactoryGirl: attributes_for not giving me associated attributes suggests using (Factory.build :company).attributes.symbolize_keys, which winds up creating new problems.
Specifically, Rails 4.1 enums show as integers instead of enum values, as reported here: https://github.com/thoughtbot/factory_girl/issues/680
It turns out that the BigDecimal issue was a red herring, caused by a bug in the rspec matcher which produces incorrect diffs. This was established here: https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/issues/1649
The actual matcher failure is caused by Date values that don't match. This is due to the time returned being different, but it doesn't show because Date.inspect does not show milliseconds.
I got around these problems with a monkey patched Hash method that symbolizes keys and stringifes values.
Here's the Hash method, which could go in rails_spec.rb:
class Hash
def symbolize_and_stringify
Hash[
self
.delete_if { |k, v| %w[id created_at updated_at].member?(k) }
.map { |k, v| [k.to_sym, v.to_s] }
]
end
end
Alternatively (and perhaps preferably) I could have written a custom rspec matcher than iterates through each attribute and compares their values individually, which would have worked around the date issue. That was the approach of the assert_records_values method at the bottom of the answer I selected by #Benjamin_Sinclaire (for which, thank you).
However, I decided instead to go back to the much, much simpler approach of sticking with attributes_for and just comparing the attribute I changed. Specifically:
let(:valid_attributes) { FactoryGirl.attributes_for(:company) }
let(:valid_session) { {} }
describe "PUT update" do
describe "with valid params" do
let(:new_attributes) { FactoryGirl.attributes_for(:company, name: 'New Name') }
it "updates the requested company" do
company = Company.create! valid_attributes
put :update, {:id => company.to_param, :company => new_attributes}, valid_session
company.reload
expect(assigns(:company).attributes['name']).to match(new_attributes[:name])
end
I hope this post allows others to avoid repeating my investigations.
Well, I did something that's quite simpler, I'm using Fabricator, but I'm pretty sure it's the same with FactoryGirl:
let(:new_attributes) ( { "phone" => 87276251 } )
it "updates the requested patient" do
patient = Fabricate :patient
put :update, id: patient.to_param, patient: new_attributes
patient.reload
# skip("Add assertions for updated state")
expect(patient.attributes).to include( { "phone" => 87276251 } )
end
Also, I'm not sure why you are building a new factory, PUT verb is supposed to add new stuff, right?. And what you are testing if what you added in the first place (new_attributes), happens to exist after the put in the same model.
This code can be used to solve your two issues:
it "updates the requested patient" do
patient = Patient.create! valid_attributes
patient_before = JSON.parse(patient.to_json).symbolize_keys
put :update, { :id => patient.to_param, :patient => new_attributes }, valid_session
patient.reload
patient_after = JSON.parse(patient.to_json).symbolize_keys
patient_after.delete(:updated_at)
patient_after.keys.each do |attribute_name|
if new_attributes.keys.include? attribute_name
# expect updated attributes to have changed:
expect(patient_after[attribute_name]).to eq new_attributes[attribute_name].to_s
else
# expect non-updated attributes to not have changed:
expect(patient_after[attribute_name]).to eq patient_before[attribute_name]
end
end
end
It solves the problem of comparing floating point numbers by converting the values to it string representation using JSON.
It also solves the problem of checking that the new values have been updated but the rest of the attributes have not changed.
In my experience, though, as the complexity grows, the usual thing to do is to check some specific object state instead of "expecting that the attributes I don't update won't change". Imagine, for instance, having some other attributes changing as the update is done in the controller, like "remaining items", "some status attributes"... You would like to check the specific expected changes, that may be more than the updated attributes.
Here is my way of testing PUT. That is a snippet from my notes_controller_spec, the main idea should be clear (tell me if not):
RSpec.describe NotesController, :type => :controller do
let(:note) { FactoryGirl.create(:note) }
let(:valid_note_params) { FactoryGirl.attributes_for(:note) }
let(:request_params) { {} }
...
describe "PUT 'update'" do
subject { put 'update', request_params }
before(:each) { request_params[:id] = note.id }
context 'with valid note params' do
before(:each) { request_params[:note] = valid_note_params }
it 'updates the note in database' do
expect{ subject }.to change{ Note.where(valid_note_params).count }.by(1)
end
end
end
end
Instead of FactoryGirl.build(:company).attributes.symbolize_keys, I'd write FactoryGirl.attributes_for(:company). It is shorter and contains only parameters that you specified in your factory.
Unfortunately that is all I can say about your questions.
P.S. Though if you lay BigDecimal equality check on database layer by writing in style like
expect{ subject }.to change{ Note.where(valid_note_params).count }.by(1)
this may work for you.
Testing the rails application with rspec-rails gem.
Created the scaffold of user.
Now you need to pass all the examples for the user_controller_spec.rb
This has already written by the scaffold generator. Just implement
let(:valid_attributes){ hash_of_your_attributes} .. like below
let(:valid_attributes) {{ first_name: "Virender", last_name: "Sehwag", gender: "Male"}
}
Now will pass many examples from this file.
For invalid_attributes be sure to add the validations on any of field and
let(:invalid_attributes) {{first_name: "br"}
}
In the users model .. validation for first_name is as =>
validates :first_name, length: {minimum: 5}, allow_blank: true
Now all the examples created by the generators will pass for this controller_spec
I know this isn't really related to the actual code itself, but I'm just starting off with Rspec and am having trouble making the tests sound like English. I think it would improve the quality of my tests a lot if I understood what to put in the strings I pass to the it and describe blocks. Ex:
Category
validations
is valid with a title and description
is invalid without a title
is invalid without a description
when it has subcategories
returns the right children subcategories
should be accessible by its subcategories
when it has no subcategories
returns an empty set
This is what's coming out of my Category specs. Is there a certain way/pattern I have to write the strings that I pass to it and describe? For you Rspec experts, what do you usually think of when you're writing the describe string, and how does that differ from when you're writing the it string or context string? Below is an example of my specs in case you need some actual code to work with:
describe 'validations' do
let(:category) { Category.new }
it 'is valid with a title and description' do
category.title = 'Category'
category.description = 'Lorem Ipsum'
category.should be_valid
end
it 'is invalid without a title' do
category.description = 'Lorem Ipsum'
category.should_not be_valid
end
it 'is invalid without a description' do
category.title = 'Category'
category.should_not be_valid
end
end
context 'when it has subcategories' do
let(:category) { FactoryGirl.create(:category) }
it 'returns the right children subcategories' do
child = category.subcategories.build(title: 'Child Category', description: 'Lorem Ipsum')
category.subcategories.should include(child)
end
it 'should be accessible by its subcategories' do
child = category.subcategories.build(title: 'Child Category', description: 'Lorem Ipsum')
child.parent_category.should_not be_nil
end
end
context 'when it has no subcategories' do
let(:category) { FactoryGirl.create(:category) }
it 'returns an empty set' do
category.subcategories.should be_empty
end
end
Basically:
describe is for "something". "Something" can be a instance or class method, or an action in features specs. ".method_name" if it is a class method and "#method_name" if it is a instance method.
context is for describe a special case of spec (context is an alias for describe). Usually start with "when".
it is what does 'something'. Usually start with "should".
describe ".to_s"
context "when is a number"
it "convert the number in a string"
context "when is a string"
it "return the same object"
But this is not strictly. Here's a guidance:
https://www.relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-core/docs/example-groups/basic-structure-describe-it
http://blog.teamtreehouse.com/an-introduction-to-rspec
http://eggsonbread.com/2010/03/28/my-rspec-best-practices-and-tips/
I generally begin my test case with should. So your test run will have something like
Category
validations
should be valid with a title and description
should be invalid without a title
should be invalid without a description
with subcategories
should return the right children subcategories
should be accessible by its subcategories
without subcategories
should return an empty set
I find it easier to understand the functionality when it is like above.
Hi I am learning to write test cases with Rspec in ruby and am following this link. So while testing the following case
require 'spec_helper'
describe "Library object" do
before :all do
lib_obj = [
Book.new ("Javascript: The Good Parts", "Douglas Crockford", :development),
Book.new ("Designing with Web Standards", "Jeffrey Zeldman", :design),
Book.new ("Don't make me Think", "Steve krug", :usability),
Book.new ("Javascript Patterns", "Stoyam Stefanov", :development),
Book.new ("Responsive Web Design", "Ethan Marcotte", :design)
]
File.open "books.yml", "w" do |f|
f.write YAML::dump lib_obj
end
end
before :each do
#lib = Library.new "books.yml"
end
describe "#new" do
context "with no parameters" do
it "has no books" do
lib = Library.new
lib.should have(0).books
end
end
context "with a yaml file paramater" do
it "has five books" do
#lib.should have(5).books
end
end
end
it "returns all the books in a given category" do
#lib.get_books_in_category(:development).length.should == 2
end
it "accepts new books" do
#lib.add_book(Book.new("Designing for the Web", "Mark Boulton", :design))
#lib.get_book("Designing for the Web").should be_an_instance_of Book
end
it "saves the library" do
books = #lib.books.map { |book| book.title }
#lib.save
lib2 = Library.new "books.yml"
books2 = lib2.books.map { |book| book.title }
books.should eql books2
end
end
I am getting the following error:-
syntax error, unexpected ',', expecting keyword_end
Book.new ("Don't make me Think", "Steve krug", :usability),
This stands for all the entries in array lib_obj.
I am using ruby 1.9.3 and rails 3.2.6
Kindly help
You have an extra space between your method calls and argument lists.
Book.new (...)
...is not the same as:
Book.new(...)
I see you are passing in string value's for a new Book class although you are not specifying the attribute you want to bind it to.
try:
new_book = Book.new(:name => "string", :cover_image => "string") etc.
also make sure your model validations and mass_assignment security are set correctly but your test will point you there soon.
Here is what I have:
context "Create ingredient from string" do
context "1 cups butter" do
setup do
#ingredient = Ingredient.create(:ingredient_string => "1 cups butter")
end
should "return unit" do
assert_equal #ingredient.unit, 'cups'
end
should "return amount" do
assert_equal #ingredient.amount, 1.0
end
should "return name" do
assert_equal #ingredient.name, 'butter'
end
end
context "1 (18.25 ounce) package devil's food cake mix with pudding" do
setup do
#ingredient = Ingredient.create(:ingredient_string => "1 (18.25 ounce) package devil's food cake mix with pudding")
end
should "return unit" do
assert_equal #ingredient.unit, '(18.25 ounce) package'
end
should "return amount" do
assert_equal #ingredient.amount, 1.0
end
should "return name" do
assert_equal #ingredient.name, 'devil\'s food cake mix with pudding'
end
end
end
Clearly there is a lot of duplication there. Any thoughts on how to remove it, if only at the very least the context and the string?
Here's a solution to your specific problem. The idea is to create a class method (like Shoulda's context, setup and should).
Encapsulate the repetition in a class method accepting all varying parts as arguments like this:
def self.should_get_unit_amount_and_name_from_string(unit, amount, name, string_to_analyze)
context string_to_analyze do
setup do
#ingredient = Ingredient.create(:ingredient_string => string_to_analyze)
end
should "return unit" do
assert_equal #ingredient.unit, unit
end
should "return amount" do
assert_equal #ingredient.amount, amount
end
should "return name" do
assert_equal #ingredient.name, name
end
end
end
Now you can call all these encapsulated tests with one liners (5-liners here for readability ;-)
context "Create ingredient from string" do
should_get_unit_amount_and_name_from_string(
'cups',
1.0,
'butter',
"1 cups butter")
should_get_unit_amount_and_name_from_string(
'(18.25 ounce) package',
1.0,
'devil\'s food cake mix with pudding',
"1 (18.25 ounce) package devil's food cake mix with pudding")
end
In some cases, you may want to accept a block which could serve as your Shoulda setup.
Duplication in tests is not necessarily a Bad Thing(tm)
I suggest you read the following articles from Jay Field
http://blog.jayfields.com/2007/06/testing-one-assertion-per-test.html
http://blog.jayfields.com/2008/05/testing-duplicate-code-in-your-tests.html
They make a convinving case for code duplication in the tests and keeping one assertion per test.
Tests/specs are not production code and so being dry is not a priority.
The principle is that the specs should be clear to read, even if it means there is duplication of text across tests.
Don't be too concerned about specs being dry. Overemphasis of dry tests tends to make things more difficult as you have to jump around to the definitions of things to understand what is happening.
Personally for this test, I wouldn't use Shoulda.
You can easily remove duplication by using dynamic method creation as follows:
class DefineMethodTest < Test::Unit::TestCase
[{:string => '1 cups butter', :unit => 'cups', :amount => 1.0, :name => 'butter'},{:string => '1 (18.25 ounce) package devil's food cake mix with pudding', :unit => '(18.25 ounce) package', :unit => 1.0, :name => "devil's food cake mix with pudding"}].each do |t|
define_method "test_create_ingredient_from_string_#{t[:string].downcase.gsub(/[^a-z0-9]+/, '_')}" do
#ingredient = Ingredient.create(:ingredient_string => t[:string])
assert_equal #ingredient.unit, t[:unit], "Should return unit #{t[:unit]}"
assert_equal #ingredient.amount, t[:amount], "Should return amount #{t[:amount]}"
assert_equal #ingredient.name, t[:name], "Should return name #{t[:name]}"
end
end
end