I'm trying to create a cucumber scenario that checks to see if elements are loaded for an 'edit posting' page. My trouble, however, is that I don't know how to create a path that will direct it to the page.
The general path is something like: /posting/id/edit
i.e. /posting/11/edit
Here is my posting.feature scenario
# Editing existing post
Scenario: Saving the edits to an existing post
Given I am logged in
Given there is a posting
Given I am on the edit posting page
When I fill in "posting_title" with "blah"
And I fill in "posting_location" with "blegh"
When I press "Update posting"
Then I should see "Posting was successfully updated."
I dabbled around with some Factory Girl stuff, but I don't have the knowledge to use it appropriately (if it offers a solution), and wasn't able to find a relevant example.
I've also seen a lot of suggestions with regards to 'Pickle', but if possible I'd like to avoid that route to keep things simple seeing as I have very limited experience. Thanks!
Is there a link on your website that would take someone to the edit page? Then you could do something like:
Given I am on the homepage
And I follow "Posts"
And I follow "Edit"
This assumes that there is a link on your homepage whose text is Posts, and then another one in the resulting page called Edit. This is the best way to accomplish this, because there should be a direct route to whatever page you are testing. Those steps are also provided in web_steps.rb
You could also make a custom step like you did there with Given I am on the edit posting page and the code would be something like:
Given /^I am on the edit posting page$/ do
visit("/posting/11/edit")
end
Which you of course could also generalize like I am on the edit posting page for posting 11. But in general, cucumber tests are acceptance tests, which means not bypassing things like this. You should have a link to the edit page that can be clicked.
I came up with a solution, but I am not sure of its validity in terms of how clean it is. I ended up using Factory Girl (installed the gem).
I kept my scenario the same.
Under features/step_definitions I created posting_steps.rb
Given /^there is a posting$/ do
Factory(:posting)
end
Under features/support I created a file factories.rb with the following inside:
Factory.define :posting do |f|
f.association :user
f.title 'blah'
f.location 'Some place'
end
In my paths.rb I used
when /the edit posting page/
edit_posting_path(Posting.first)
How it works (or at least how I think it works) is that as
Given there is a posting
is executed, the posting_step.rb is invoked (Factory(:posting) is basically Factory.create(:posting)), which in turn uses the factory definition I created in factories.rb. This leads to an instance of a posting being created.
Then in my paths.rb
when /the edit posting page/
edit_posting_path(Posting.first)
gets passed the id from the instance, to ultimately get a path that could resemble /posting/1/edit , and the test continues on its way!
If there are any corrections to be made, please let me know as I am just learning the ropes.
Hopefully this will help other newbies out there!
Related
I am doing integration testing using Cucumber. In my ApplicationController, I have a method called current_user that provides the current user object. I use this object to add items to a redis database:
$redis.sadd("cart#current_user.id}", [1,5,2])
In my Cucumber steps I test this functionality:
Then /^the redis database should have "(.+)" item ids/ do |count|
expect($redis.smembers("cart#{current_user.id}").count).to eq count.to_i
end
However, it is my understanding that Cucumber does not have access to controller methods, even if they are under ApplicationController, and therefore I cannot user the current_user method the way I would in my controllers.
What I am doing now is since I am testing features, there is only one user in the database so the current_user.id will always be 1, but if I start adding more users this may not work nicely.
Is there a workaround for this?
Your not really using Cucumber as intended here. What you are doing is testing how your application currently works, but really Cukes is best used to specify what your application does and why its important.
Applying more appropriate usage to your current problem leads to the following questions
What is the reason for storing the ids in Redis?
What benefit does the customer get by having these id's stored?
Taking a wild guess you might be saving a basket so that if the user logs out, their basket would still be populated when they come back. Then your scenario would be something like
Scenario: Remember products in basket
Given I am registered
And I am logged in
When I put some products in my basket
And I log out
And I log in again
Then my basket should still have some products in it
Notice how the scenario is all about WHAT you are doing and WHY its important but reveals nothing about HOW this is going to be done. This is a really good way to critique scenarios. Scenarios that contain HOW stuff are going to be harder to write and much harder to maintain. Anyhow enough of that :)
Now you can use standard cucumber stuff like assigned the user to a variable in one step e.g. #i = create_registered_user and then using that user in the other steps e.g. login as: #i
Note that we don't look at the database, only at what the user sees, and we don't reveal anything about HOW this functionality works in the scenario.
If you want to write tests (rather than scenarios) that do reveal how functionality works and do look at databases for results then I'd suggest that rspec would be better suited for this.
do you have a step to login? if so, you can change it a little so you can control which user logs in:
Given "john_doe" logs in to the app
Then you can search by username and do the login in your step. You can do the same on this step:
Then /^the redis database should have "(.+)" item ids/ do |count|
something like
Then /^the redis database should have "(.+)" item ids for user "(.*)"/ do |count, user_name|
user = User.find_by(username: user_name)
expect($redis.smembers("cart#{user.id}").count).to eq count.to_i
end
My knowledge of Rails is pretty basic, but I have to fix a problem in a Rails project and the programmer can not be reached. So I'm trying to fix it myself, but I'm stuck.
The project revolves around user being able to add pictures to competitions, and to be able to vote on those pictures. The plan was to have to voting on the same page as the images, but this gives a few bugs in the JS and slow performance. So I want to have the voting and the overview on two different pages.
The problem is that I can't figure out how to create another page inside the views > competitions folder and link it up with the rest of the project. The easiest solution for me would be to copy the show.html.haml and paste it like votepage.html.haml but obviously that isn't so easy.
in the view > competitions folder there's an index.html.haml file, this displays a list of current competitions and gives a admin the ability to remove, add or edit certain competitions. When a user clicks on a link to a competition this gets rendered in the show.html.haml. On this page all the images that have been uploaded in that competition are shown. On that page I want a link that refers to the voting section. When a user clicks that link it should go to the votepage.html.haml (which is 100% the same as the show.html.haml but with different styling and added javascript). For now there's no need to actually make the voting work, "faking" it through front-end is good enough.
TLDR: I want to copy/paste a page in a view, but I don't know how to hook it up to the project.
Update1. I've used the console command rails generate controller competitions votepage which created a votepage for me. I could visit this one as well on http://localhost:3000/competitions/votepage
With the following code
- #competitions.each do |competition|
#container.js-masonry
.painting.item
= link_to competition do
- competition.pictures.shuffle.each do |picture|
= image_tag(picture.image_url)
I can insert images from the competitions in the page. But the problem is that I gets images from all competitions. And not so much competitions/1 , competitions/2 etc.
What you're missing is updating the routes file so that Rails knows what you want
Views:
competitions/
show.html.haml
vote.html.haml
...
Routes:
resources :competitions do
get :vote, on: :member
end
Member makes it behave like the show action, requiring a format like competitions/:id/vote
Edit:
You want to do the routes like above, but in the controller, make sure you get the competition from the id that will get passed
Controller:
def vote
#competition = Competition.find(params[:id])
end
And then instead of looping through all the competitions, you can just take the loop out and reference #competition
The basic answer is that you also need to copy the show method from app/controllers/competitions and make a votepage method with the contents in the same file.
This guide will help explain how views get wired (by the controller) to models: http://guides.rubyonrails.org/action_controller_overview.html
I am going through Hartl's Rails Tutorial. I'm up to the first exercise of 9.6, where he asks me to test that the User admin attribute isn't accessible. The justification is earlier in the book:
After Listing 9.42, Hartl's Rails Tutorial says
If we omitted the attr_accessible list in the User model (or foolishly added :admin to the list), a malicious user could send a PUT request as follows:
put /users/17?admin=1
The corresponding exercise (exercise 9.6.1) in the tutorial says
add a test to verify that the User admin attribute isn’t accessible
I have completed that test with this code in user_spec.rb:
expect do
#user.update_attributes(:admin => true)
end.to raise_error(ActiveModel::MassAssignmentSecurity::Error)
But I used stackoverflow to get that test. This was my original idea (in user_pages_spec.rb):
expect do
put user_path(user) + "?admin=1"
end.to raise_error(ActiveModel::MassAssignmentSecurity::Error) # or some other error
But I couldn't get it to work.
So my questions are:
Is my idea possible? Isn't it better to test directly for what a potential hacker might do from the command line? Isn't that the idea of Capybara, testing user actions?
If it is possible, is there a difference between testing mass assignment and testing the PUT action?
If it isn't possible, why? Is it just not necessary or am I missing something here?
I think I would argue with you that your test is actually better. Some would argue that the given answer is testing Rails functionality which really isn't your job. However, I do think it's frequently good to test things in several different directions.
I was under the impression from back in my school days that it was impossible to send data via the URI except when doing a GET. A quick search of stackoverflow didn't result in any confirmation. However, the wikipedia article seems to imply it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POST_%28HTTP%2
I think the correct line of code would be
put user_path(user), {user: {admin: 1}, id: user.id}
I hope that helps.
I'm intentionally asking this question in an inflammatory way because I'm concerned that I'm missing something.
The Rails Way for dealing with an update to a model is the following:
class UsersController < ApplicationController
...
def update
#current_user = load_user
if #current_user.update_attributes params[:user]
redirect_to success_path
else
render :edit
end
end
end
This is all well and good except that you end up on an odd URL when the form submission is incorrect:
Editing User
You find yourself on the path:
users/:user_id/edit
After submitting edits that don't validate
i.e. you're going to need to fix the inputs in your form and resubmit:
users/:user_id
After submitting edits that do validate
success_path
Why the hell should you be on a different URL just because the form has errors?
The problem...
You're doing the same thing but you're now on a different URL. This is a bit odd.
In fact frankly it feels wrong. You're on a form which has not validated correctly and so has reloaded. You should still be on /users/:user_id/edit. If you'd done JS validation you would be.
Furthermore if you've got any "currently selected" logic going on in your navigation then you are in fact visually in the wrong place as the correct nav item is no longer highlighted - it looks like you're on the user profile page.
Why the hell should you be on a different URL just because the form
has errors?
Because when you first went to:
users/:user_id/edit
...you were requesting a GET.
Then you POSTed to:
users/:user_id
So by sending the form post, you have requested a different resource route, and have a different URL by definition.
The framework doesn't care what happened in the background while your request was processing - all it knows is it was a POST (which by convention is not necessarily idempotent as a GET is)
Actually it's not the "Rails Way", it's "REST Way". Wikipedia: Representational state transfer
If you follow the rules you get REST-compliant web-service for free. As I understand it the path "resource/id/edit" is specific to html documents. Web-service clients don't need form for editing.
So the guys were trying to be consistent. If you don't need web-service compatibility you can change the routes of course.
I've created a custom cucumber step for checking the destination for a link, and I'm using Cucumber's new built in support in web_steps for scoping these lookups. So I have two cucumber steps involved:
# My step to verify the link
Then /^"([^\"]*)" should link to (.*)$/ do |link_text,page_name|
page.should have_link(link_text, :href => path_to(page_name))
end
# Cucumber's built in step to scope things
# Single-line step scoper
When /^(.*) within ([^:]+)$/ do |step, parent|
with_scope(parent) { When step }
end
I use this by having cucumber scripts that do things like
And "home" should link to the home page within the "Email Signature" section
My problem is that I'm getting ambiguous matches on the above between these two steps, because the 'within' clause can't be told apart from the "the home page", because the latter doesn't have any bounding quotes.
I've tried changing the link step to read like this, thinking it might resolve the ambiguity by not matching the 'within', but I think the 'within' gets swallowed by the preceeding group instead:
Then /^"([^\"]*)" should link to (.*)(?!within)$/ do |link_text,page_name|
page.should have_link(link_text, :href => path_to(page_name))
end
Any thoughts on how to resolve this?
Not directly an answer to the question I posed (for that see Qtax's answer), but here's what I've wound up doing. I think it's a nicer solution anyway, for what it's worth...
I've created a custom version of the scoping helper that looks like this:
Then /^within ([^,]*), (.+)$/ do |parent, step|
with_scope(parent) { When step }
end
This allows me to write steps like this:
And within the "Email Signature" section, "home" should link to the home page
Which I think (a) reads more naturally (it's clearer that we're talking about the link being in the e-mail signature section, not the home page), and (b) works around the problem I was having, because the unquoted 'within' selector is well out of the way of the unquoted page name.
Try something like:
/^"([^"]*)" should link to ((?:(?!within).)+)$/
Don't know anything about Cucumber, I'm just going by what you tried to do.