Hi I have a Ruby class with some constant variables using Date:
START_DATE = Date.current.at_beginning_of_month.in_time_zone + 2.days
LAST_DATE = Date.current.at_beginning_of_month.in_time_zone + 10.days
and I have some methods which uses this date inside like below:
Date.current.in_time_zone.between?(START_DATE, LAST_DATE)
in my rspec file I'm using Timecop.freeze and it's breaking my tests.
Is there a workaround to use the same variable for most of my methods? or am I using this incorrectly?
I would appreciate any help!
I actually got this answer from the Ruby slack community I got a suggestion to make it a method.
so something like:
def start_date
Date.current.at_beginning_of_month.in_time_zone + 2.days
end
I also just learned what #spickermann meant with why I shouldn't use constant variable because it will stay constant from the start of the server it will have the initial value. and technically, it's not a constant. :sweatsmile:
Whether or not you use Timecop for other interactions in your tests, you may also want to consider stubbing the constants themselves. Once you've tested the logic involved with setting the constants, consider using stub_const to ensure that the constants are set to the values you want in your test suite. For example, you might include a block in your test suite that looks something like this:
before :each do
stub_const("MyClass::START_DATE", <start_time>)
stub_const("MyClass::END_DATE", <end_time>)
end
Updated:
Comment below says this doesn't work, which is odd... definitely works for me. Just tested this like this:
class User
MY_CONST = "foo"
def my_method
MY_CONST
end
end
and then in rspec:
describe User do
it "works unstubbed" do
expect(User.new.my_const).to eq("foo")
end
it "works stubbed" do
stub_const("User::MY_CONST", "bar")
expect(User.new.my_const).to eq("bar")
end
end
trying to upgrade to Rails 4.2, using delayed_job_active_record. I've not set the delayed_job backend for test environment as thought that way jobs would execute straight away.
I'm trying to test the new 'deliver_later' method with RSpec, but I'm not sure how.
Old controller code:
ServiceMailer.delay.new_user(#user)
New controller code:
ServiceMailer.new_user(#user).deliver_later
I USED to test it like so:
expect(ServiceMailer).to receive(:new_user).with(#user).and_return(double("mailer", :deliver => true))
Now I get errors using that. (Double "mailer" received unexpected message :deliver_later with (no args))
Just
expect(ServiceMailer).to receive(:new_user)
fails too with 'undefined method `deliver_later' for nil:NilClass'
I've tried some examples that allow you to see if jobs are enqueued using test_helper in ActiveJob but I haven't managed to test that the correct job is queued.
expect(enqueued_jobs.size).to eq(1)
This passes if the test_helper is included, but it doesn't allow me to check it is the correct email that is being sent.
What I want to do is:
test that the correct email is queued (or executed straight away in test env)
with the correct parameters (#user)
Any ideas??
thanks
If I understand you correctly, you could do:
message_delivery = instance_double(ActionMailer::MessageDelivery)
expect(ServiceMailer).to receive(:new_user).with(#user).and_return(message_delivery)
allow(message_delivery).to receive(:deliver_later)
The key thing is that you need to somehow provide a double for deliver_later.
Using ActiveJob and rspec-rails 3.4+, you could use have_enqueued_job like this:
expect {
YourMailer.your_method.deliver_later
# or any other method that eventually would trigger mail enqueuing
}.to(
have_enqueued_job.on_queue('mailers').with(
# `with` isn't mandatory, but it will help if you want to make sure is
# the correct enqueued mail.
'YourMailer', 'your_method', 'deliver_now', any_param_you_want_to_check
)
)
also double check in config/environments/test.rb you have:
config.action_mailer.delivery_method = :test
config.active_job.queue_adapter = :test
Another option would be to run inline jobs:
config.active_job.queue_adapter = :inline
But keep in mind this would affect the overall performance of your test suite, as all your jobs will run as soon as they're enqueued.
If you find this question but are using ActiveJob rather than simply DelayedJob on its own, and are using Rails 5, I recommend configuring ActionMailer in config/environments/test.rb:
config.active_job.queue_adapter = :inline
(this was the default behavior prior to Rails 5)
I will add my answer because none of the others was good enough for me:
1) There is no need to mock the Mailer: Rails basically does that already for you.
2) There is no need to really trigger the creation of the email: this will consume time and slow down your test!
That's why in environments/test.rb you should have the following options set:
config.action_mailer.delivery_method = :test
config.active_job.queue_adapter = :test
Again: don't deliver your emails using deliver_now but always use deliver_later. That prevents your users from waiting for the effective delivering of the email. If you don't have sidekiq, sucker_punch, or any other in production, simply use config.active_job.queue_adapter = :async. And either async or inline for development environment.
Given the following configuration for the testing environment, you emails will always be enqueued and never executed for delivery: this prevents your from mocking them and you can check that they are enqueued correctly.
In you tests, always split the test in two:
1) One unit test to check that the email is enqueued correctly and with the correct parameters
2) One unit test for the mail to check that the subject, sender, receiver and content are correct.
Given the following scenario:
class User
after_update :send_email
def send_email
ReportMailer.update_mail(id).deliver_later
end
end
Write a test to check the email is enqueued correctly:
include ActiveJob::TestHelper
expect { user.update(name: 'Hello') }.to have_enqueued_job(ActionMailer::DeliveryJob).with('ReportMailer', 'update_mail', 'deliver_now', user.id)
and write a separate test for your email
Rspec.describe ReportMailer do
describe '#update_email' do
subject(:mailer) { described_class.update_email(user.id) }
it { expect(mailer.subject).to eq 'whatever' }
...
end
end
You have tested exactly that your email has been enqueued and not a generic job.
Your test is fast
You needed no mocking
When you write a system test, feel free to decide if you want to really deliver emails there, since speed doesn't matter that much anymore. I personally like to configure the following:
RSpec.configure do |config|
config.around(:each, :mailer) do |example|
perform_enqueued_jobs do
example.run
end
end
end
and assign the :mailer attribute to the tests were I want to actually send emails.
For more about how to correctly configure your email in Rails read this article: https://medium.com/#coorasse/the-correct-emails-configuration-in-rails-c1d8418c0bfd
Add this:
# spec/support/message_delivery.rb
class ActionMailer::MessageDelivery
def deliver_later
deliver_now
end
end
Reference: http://mrlab.sk/testing-email-delivery-with-deliver-later.html
A nicer solution (than monkeypatching deliver_later) is:
require 'spec_helper'
include ActiveJob::TestHelper
describe YourObject do
around { |example| perform_enqueued_jobs(&example) }
it "sends an email" do
expect { something_that.sends_an_email }.to change(ActionMailer::Base.deliveries, :length)
end
end
The around { |example| perform_enqueued_jobs(&example) } ensures that background tasks are run before checking the test values.
I came with the same doubt and resolved in a less verbose (single line) way inspired by this answer
expect(ServiceMailer).to receive_message_chain(:new_user, :deliver_later).with(#user).with(no_args)
Note that the last with(no_args) is essential.
But, if you don't bother if deliver_later is being called, just do:
expect(ServiceMailer).to expect(:new_user).with(#user).and_call_original
A simple way is:
expect(ServiceMailer).to(
receive(:new_user).with(#user).and_call_original
)
# subject
This answer is for Rails Test, not for rspec...
If you are using delivery_later like this:
# app/controllers/users_controller.rb
class UsersController < ApplicationController
…
def create
…
# Yes, Ruby 2.0+ keyword arguments are preferred
UserMailer.welcome_email(user: #user).deliver_later
end
end
You can check in your test if the email has been added to the queue:
# test/controllers/users_controller_test.rb
require 'test_helper'
class UsersControllerTest < ActionController::TestCase
…
test 'email is enqueued to be delivered later' do
assert_enqueued_jobs 1 do
post :create, {…}
end
end
end
If you do this though, you’ll surprised by the failing test that tells you assert_enqueued_jobs is not defined for us to use.
This is because our test inherits from ActionController::TestCase which, at the time of writing, does not include ActiveJob::TestHelper.
But we can quickly fix this:
# test/test_helper.rb
class ActionController::TestCase
include ActiveJob::TestHelper
…
end
Reference:
https://www.engineyard.com/blog/testing-async-emails-rails-42
For recent Googlers:
allow(YourMailer).to receive(:mailer_method).and_call_original
expect(YourMailer).to have_received(:mailer_method)
I think one of the better ways to test this is to check the status of job alongside the basic response json checks like:
expect(ActionMailer::MailDeliveryJob).to have_been_enqueued.on_queue('mailers').with('mailer_name', 'mailer_method', 'delivery_now', { :params => {}, :args=>[] } )
I have come here looking for an answer for a complete testing, so, not just asking if there is one mail waiting to be sent, in addition, for its recipient, subject...etc
I have a solution, than comes from here, but with a little change:
As it says, the curial part is
mail = perform_enqueued_jobs { ActionMailer::DeliveryJob.perform_now(*enqueued_jobs.first[:args]) }
The problem is that the parameters than mailer receives, in this case, is different from the parameters than receives in production, in production, if the first parameter is a Model, now in testing will receive a hash, so will crash
enqueued_jobs.first[:args]
["UserMailer", "welcome_email", "deliver_now", {"_aj_globalid"=>"gid://forjartistica/User/1"}]
So, if we call the mailer as UserMailer.welcome_email(#user).deliver_later the mailer receives in production a User, but in testing will receive {"_aj_globalid"=>"gid://forjartistica/User/1"}
All comments will be appreciate,
The less painful solution I have found is changing the way that I call the mailers, passing, the model's id and not the model:
UserMailer.welcome_email(#user.id).deliver_later
This answer is a little bit different, but may help in cases like a new change in the rails API, or a change in the way you want to deliver (like use deliver_now instead of deliver_later).
What I do most of the time is to pass a mailer as a dependency to the method that I am testing, but I don't pass an mailer from rails, I instead pass an object that will do the the things in the "way that I want"...
For example if I want to check that I am sending the right mail after the registration of a user... I could do...
class DummyMailer
def self.send_welcome_message(user)
end
end
it "sends a welcome email" do
allow(store).to receive(:create).and_return(user)
expect(mailer).to receive(:send_welcome_message).with(user)
register_user(params, store, mailer)
end
And then in the controller where I will be calling that method, I would write the "real" implementation of that mailer...
class RegistrationsController < ApplicationController
def create
Registrations.register_user(params[:user], User, Mailer)
# ...
end
class Mailer
def self.send_welcome_message(user)
ServiceMailer.new_user(user).deliver_later
end
end
end
In this way I feel that I am testing that I am sending the right message, to the right object, with the right data (arguments). And I am just in need of creating a very simple object that has no logic, just the responsibility of knowing how ActionMailer wants to be called.
I prefer to do this because I prefer to have more control over the dependencies I have. This is form me an example of the "Dependency inversion principle".
I am not sure if it is your taste, but is another way to solve the problem =).
I am in the process of freeing myself from FactoryGirl (at least in the lib folder). So, I start writing strange stuff like "mock" and "stub". Can somebody help a novice out?
I have this module
module LogWorker
extend self
def check_todo_on_log(log, done)
if done == "1"
log.todo.completed = true
log.todo.save!
elsif done.nil?
log.todo.completed = false
log.todo.save!
end
end
end
log and todo are rails models with a todo :has_many logs association. But that should really not matter when working with stubs and mocks, right?
I have tried many things, but when I pass the mock to the method nothing happens,
describe LogWorker do
it 'should check_todo_on_log'do
todo = mock("todo")
log = mock("log")
log.stub!(:todo).and_return(todo)
todo.stub!(:completed).and_return(false)
LogWorker.check_todo_on_log(log,1)
log.todo.completed.should eq true
end
end
Failures:
1) LogWorker should check_todo_on_log
Failure/Error: log.todo.completed.should eq true
expected: true
got: false
(compared using ==
I would really like to see some spec that would test the LogWorker.check_todo_on_log method with stubs and/or mocks.
Firstly, your check_todo_on_log method is pretty bad. Never, ever use strings as options, especially when the string is "1". Also, if you pass "2", nothing happens. I'll assume though it is just a partial method, and your code isn't really like that :P
Looking at your code, you have three main problems. Firstly, you call LogWorker.check_todo_on_log(log,1). This won't do anything, as your method only does stuff when the second param is the string "1" or nil. Secondly, you stub todo.completed so it always returns false: todo.stub!(:completed).and_return(false). You then test if it is true. Obviously this is going to fail. Finally, you don't mock the save! method. I don't know how the code is actually running for you (it doesn't work for me).
Below is how I would write your specs (note that they are testing weird behaviour as the check_todo_on_log method is also strange).
Firstly, there is an easier way to add mock methods to a mock object. You can pass keys and values to the mock methods, and they will automatically be created.
Next, I put the mocks into let blocks. This allows them to be recreated easily for each test. Finally, I add a test for each possible behaviour of the function.
# you won't need these two lines, they just let the code be run by itself
# without a rails app behind it. This is one of the powers of mocks,
# the Todo and Log classes aren't even defined anywhere, yet I can
# still test the `LogWorker` class!
require 'rspec'
require 'rspec/mocks/standalone'
module LogWorker
extend self
def check_todo_on_log(log, done)
if done == "1"
log.todo.completed = true
log.todo.save!
elsif done.nil?
log.todo.completed = false
log.todo.save!
end
end
end
describe LogWorker do
let(:todo) { mock("Todo", save!: true) }
let(:log) { mock("Log", todo: todo) }
describe :check_todo_on_log do
it 'checks todo when done is "1"'do
todo.should_receive(:completed=).with(true)
LogWorker.check_todo_on_log(log,"1")
end
it 'unchecks todo when done is nil'do
todo.should_receive(:completed=).with(false)
LogWorker.check_todo_on_log(log,nil)
end
it "doesn't do anything when done is not '1' or nil" do
todo.should_not_receive(:completed=)
LogWorker.check_todo_on_log(log,3)
end
end
end
Notice how I am using behaviour based testing? I'm not testing that an attribute on the mock has a value, I am checking that an appropriate methods are called on it. This is the key to correctly using mocks.
I am writing a test for file download during which I am using the original_filename. I was able to mock the file upload using fixture_file_upload. But how to stub/mock the original_filename call.
def import_for_photo(picture_url, user)
remote_photo = open(picture_url)
remote_photo.original_filename = "#{user.id}.jpg"
user.update_attributes({:picture => remote_photo})
end
The test
def test_import_for_photo
fixture_file = fixture_file_upload(File.join('files', 'test.jpg'), 'image/jpeg')
OpenURI.expects(:open_uri).returns(fixture_file)
import_for_photo("http://dummy_url.com/dummy.jpg", users(:one))
assert_equal "1.jpg", users(:one).reload.picture_file_name
end
Test output,
NoMethodError: undefined method `original_filename=' for #<File:/tmp/test.jpg20120512-4253-x673nc-0>
I know why this test fails, but how to fix it ?
You should look in to using mocha for doing stubbing, or better yet (in my opinion) switch over to using rspec-rails. They have great mocking/stubbing facilities, and they allow you to make better tests, use cleaner syntax, and give more organization to your test file structure.
Each of these gems have readily available documentation about how to mock/stub out calls.
Found out the solution. Instead of trying to stub :original_filename, I stubbed :original_filename= (notice the '=') and my problem was solved !
Here is the code
def test_import_for_photo
fixture_file = fixture_file_upload(File.join('files', 'test.jpg'), 'image/jpeg')
fixture_file.expects(:original_filename=)
OpenURI.expects(:open_uri).returns(fixture_file)
import_for_photo("http://dummy_url.com/dummy.jpg", users(:one))
assert_equal "1.jpg", users(:one).reload.picture_file_name
end
I would like to implement the method User.calculate_hashed_password. I'm trying to use the Shoulda testing library which works with Rails's built-in testing tools, so an answer related to Test::Unit would be just as good as one related to Shoulda (I think).
I'm trying to figure out what I need to test and how I should test it. My initial idea is to do something like...
class UserTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase
should 'Return a hashed password'
assert_not_nil User.calculate_hashed_password
end
end
Is this the right way to do it?
You don't need to test that the method exists, just that the method behaves correctly. Say something like this:
class UserTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase
setup do
#user = User.new
end
should 'Calculate the hashed password correctly'
#user.password = "password"
#user.hashed_password = "xxxxx" # Manually calculate it
end
end
(I don't use shoulda, so excuse any glaring syntax errors.)
That test will fail if the method doesn't exist.
I agree with Otto; but as dylanfm noted, I use #respond_to to test for associations in RSpec.
it "should know about associated Projects" do
#user.should respond_to(:projects)
end
Maybe use respond_to?
You should check out Object#respond_to? and Object#try in newer versions of Rails. If you're new to testing in general, definitely read through this excellent guide on testing in Rails.