How to test a custom validator? - ruby-on-rails

I have the following validator:
# Source: http://guides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_validations_callbacks.html#custom-validators
# app/validators/email_validator.rb
class EmailValidator < ActiveModel::EachValidator
def validate_each(object, attribute, value)
unless value =~ /^([^#\s]+)#((?:[-a-z0-9]+\.)+[a-z]{2,})$/i
object.errors[attribute] << (options[:message] || "is not formatted properly")
end
end
end
I would like to be able to test this in RSpec inside of my lib directory. The problem so far is I am not sure how to initialize an EachValidator.

I am not a huge fan of the other approach because it ties the test too close to the implementation. Also, it's fairly hard to follow. This is the approach I ultimately use. Please keep in mind that this is a gross oversimplification of what my validator actually did... just wanted to demonstrate it more simply. There are definitely optimizations to be made
class OmniauthValidator < ActiveModel::Validator
def validate(record)
if !record.omniauth_provider.nil? && !%w(facebook github).include?(record.omniauth_provider)
record.errors[:omniauth_provider] << 'Invalid omniauth provider'
end
end
end
Associated Spec:
require 'spec_helper'
class Validatable
include ActiveModel::Validations
validates_with OmniauthValidator
attr_accessor :omniauth_provider
end
describe OmniauthValidator do
subject { Validatable.new }
context 'without provider' do
it 'is valid' do
expect(subject).to be_valid
end
end
context 'with valid provider' do
it 'is valid' do
subject.stubs(omniauth_provider: 'facebook')
expect(subject).to be_valid
end
end
context 'with unused provider' do
it 'is invalid' do
subject.stubs(omniauth_provider: 'twitter')
expect(subject).not_to be_valid
expect(subject).to have(1).error_on(:omniauth_provider)
end
end
end
Basically my approach is to create a fake object "Validatable" so that we can actually test the results on it rather than have expectations for each part of the implementation

Here's a quick spec I knocked up for that file and it works well. I think the stubbing could probably be cleaned up, but hopefully this will be enough to get you started.
require 'spec_helper'
describe 'EmailValidator' do
before(:each) do
#validator = EmailValidator.new({:attributes => {}})
#mock = mock('model')
#mock.stub('errors').and_return([])
#mock.errors.stub('[]').and_return({})
#mock.errors[].stub('<<')
end
it 'should validate valid address' do
#mock.should_not_receive('errors')
#validator.validate_each(#mock, 'email', 'test#test.com')
end
it 'should validate invalid address' do
#mock.errors[].should_receive('<<')
#validator.validate_each(#mock, 'email', 'notvalid')
end
end

I would recommend creating an anonymous class for testing purposes such as:
require 'spec_helper'
require 'active_model'
require 'email_validator'
RSpec.describe EmailValidator do
subject do
Class.new do
include ActiveModel::Validations
attr_accessor :email
validates :email, email: true
end.new
end
describe 'empty email addresses' do
['', nil].each do |email_address|
describe "when email address is #{email_address}" do
it "does not add an error" do
subject.email = email_address
subject.validate
expect(subject.errors[:email]).not_to include 'is not a valid email address'
end
end
end
end
describe 'invalid email addresses' do
['nope', '#', 'foo#bar.com.', '.', ' '].each do |email_address|
describe "when email address is #{email_address}" do
it "adds an error" do
subject.email = email_address
subject.validate
expect(subject.errors[:email]).to include 'is not a valid email address'
end
end
end
end
describe 'valid email addresses' do
['foo#bar.com', 'foo#bar.bar.co'].each do |email_address|
describe "when email address is #{email_address}" do
it "does not add an error" do
subject.email = email_address
subject.validate
expect(subject.errors[:email]).not_to include 'is not a valid email address'
end
end
end
end
end
This will prevent hardcoded classes such as Validatable, which could be referenced in multiple specs, resulting in unexpected and hard to debug behavior due to interactions between unrelated validations, which you are trying to test in isolation.

Inspired by #Gazler's answer I came up with the following; mocking the model, but using ActiveModel::Errors as errors object. This slims down the mocking quite a lot.
require 'spec_helper'
RSpec.describe EmailValidator, type: :validator do
subject { EmailValidator.new(attributes: { any: true }) }
describe '#validate_each' do
let(:errors) { ActiveModel::Errors.new(OpenStruct.new) }
let(:record) {
instance_double(ActiveModel::Validations, errors: errors)
}
context 'valid email' do
it 'does not increase error count' do
expect {
subject.validate_each(record, :email, 'test#example.com')
}.to_not change(errors, :count)
end
end
context 'invalid email' do
it 'increases the error count' do
expect {
subject.validate_each(record, :email, 'fakeemail')
}.to change(errors, :count)
end
it 'has the correct error message' do
expect {
subject.validate_each(record, :email, 'fakeemail')
}.to change { errors.first }.to [:email, 'is not an email']
end
end
end
end

One more example, with extending an object instead of creating new class in the spec. BitcoinAddressValidator is a custom validator here.
require 'rails_helper'
module BitcoinAddressTest
def self.extended(parent)
class << parent
include ActiveModel::Validations
attr_accessor :address
validates :address, bitcoin_address: true
end
end
end
describe BitcoinAddressValidator do
subject(:model) { Object.new.extend(BitcoinAddressTest) }
it 'has invalid bitcoin address' do
model.address = 'invalid-bitcoin-address'
expect(model.valid?).to be_falsey
expect(model.errors[:address].size).to eq(1)
end
# ...
end

Using Neals great example as a basis I came up with the following (for Rails and RSpec 3).
# /spec/lib/slug_validator_spec.rb
require 'rails_helper'
class Validatable
include ActiveModel::Model
include ActiveModel::Validations
attr_accessor :slug
validates :slug, slug: true
end
RSpec.describe SlugValidator do
subject { Validatable.new(slug: slug) }
context 'when the slug is valid' do
let(:slug) { 'valid' }
it { is_expected.to be_valid }
end
context 'when the slug is less than the minimum allowable length' do
let(:slug) { 'v' }
it { is_expected.to_not be_valid }
end
context 'when the slug is greater than the maximum allowable length' do
let(:slug) { 'v' * 64 }
it { is_expected.to_not be_valid }
end
context 'when the slug contains invalid characters' do
let(:slug) { '*' }
it { is_expected.to_not be_valid }
end
context 'when the slug is a reserved word' do
let(:slug) { 'blog' }
it { is_expected.to_not be_valid }
end
end

If it's possible to not use stubs I would prefer this way:
require "rails_helper"
describe EmailValidator do
let(:user) { build(:user, email: email) } # let's use any real model
let(:validator) { described_class.new(attributes: [:email]) } # validate email field
subject { validator.validate(user) }
context "valid email" do
let(:email) { "person#mail.com" }
it "should be valid" do
# with this expectation we isolate specific validator we test
# and avoid leaking of other validator errors rather than with `user.valid?`
expect { subject }.to_not change { user.errors.count }
expect(user.errors[:email]).to be_blank
end
end
context "ivalid email" do
let(:email) { "invalid.com" }
it "should be invalid" do
expect { subject }.to change { user.errors.count }
# Here we can check message
expect(user.errors[:email]).to be_present
expect(user.errors[:email].join(" ")).to include("Email is invalid")
end
end
end

Related

How do I write this spec in MiniTest/shoulda syntax?

I have this spec that I want to translate to MiniTest.
describe User do
subject { build(:user, provider: 'foo') }
# don't validate presence of password when provider is present
it do
should_not validate_presence_of(:password)
end
end
I tried this. I am getting an error of undefined method 'should_not' for UserTest
class UserTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase
def setup
#user = build_stubbed(:user)
end
test "responds to name" do
assert_respond_to #user, :name
end
should validate_presence_of(:password)
test "do not validate presence of password when provider is present" do
build_stubbed(:user, provider: 'foo')
should_not validate_presence_of(:password)
end
end
I want to change the context for one test, where the subject gets a provider attribute, which should disable the presence validator on the password field.
Here's the full error:
UserTest#test_presence_of_password:
NoMethodError: undefined method `should_not' for #<UserTest:0x007feaa82c1c68>
test/models/user_test.rb:45:in `block in <class:UserTest>'
I found that the better way to do this is to revert to good old MiniTest:
test "uniqueness of email with a different provider" do
email_user = create(:user, email: "foo#bar.com")
facebook_user = build_stubbed(:facebook_user, email: "foo#bar.com")
assert facebook_user.valid?, "should be valid with same email if provider is different"
end
Take a look at the minitest-rails-shoulda gem. If you use it I assume the test would look like this:
describe User do
subject { build_stubbed(:user) }
it { must validate_presence_of(:password) }
describe "when a provider is present" do
subject { build_stubbed(:user, provider: 'foo') }
it { wont validate_presence_of(:password) }
end
end

Understand Test-Driven Development with Rspec and FactoryGirl

Here is my Spec file:
require 'spec_helper'
describe User, "references" do
it { should have_and_belong_to_many(:roles) }
it { should belong_to(:account_type) }
it { should belong_to(:primary_sport).class_name("Sport") }
it { should belong_to(:school) }
it { should belong_to(:city) }
end
describe User, "factory" do
before(:each) do
#user = FactoryGirl.create(:user)
end
it "is invalid with no email" do
#user.email = nil
#user.should_not be_valid
end
it "is valid with email" do
#user.should be_valid
end
end
Factory:
FactoryGirl.define do
factory :user do
email Faker::Internet.email
password "password"
password_confirmation "password"
agreed_to_age_requirements true
end
end
The part I am trying to "test" for and not sure how to 100% is checking to make sure when a User is created that the email address is not nil.
shoulda provides validation helpers to help you test the validations.
it { should validate_presence_of(:email) }
If you want to use rspec and write your own, then
describe User do
it "should be invalid without email" do
user = FactoryGirl.build(:user, :email => nil)
#user.should_not be_valid
#user.errors.on(:email).should == 'can't be blank' #not sure about the exact message. But you will know when you run the test
end
it "should be valid with email" do
user = FactoryGirl.build(:user, :email => "user#user.com")
#user.should be_valid
end
end
When you run the test, it would read as
User
should be invalid without email
should be valid with email
Giving a good description for your test case is very important, because it kind of acts like a documentation.

Rails & RSpec - Testing Concerns class methods

I have the following (simplified) Rails Concern:
module HasTerms
extend ActiveSupport::Concern
module ClassMethods
def optional_agreement
# Attributes
#----------------------------------------------------------------------------
attr_accessible :agrees_to_terms
end
def required_agreement
# Attributes
#----------------------------------------------------------------------------
attr_accessible :agrees_to_terms
# Validations
#----------------------------------------------------------------------------
validates :agrees_to_terms, :acceptance => true, :allow_nil => :false, :on => :create
end
end
end
I can't figure out a good way to test this module in RSpec however - if I just create a dummy class, I get active record errors when I try to check that the validations are working. Has anyone else faced this problem?
Check out RSpec shared examples.
This way you can write the following:
# spec/support/has_terms_tests.rb
shared_examples "has terms" do
# Your tests here
end
# spec/wherever/has_terms_spec.rb
module TestTemps
class HasTermsDouble
include ActiveModel::Validations
include HasTerms
end
end
describe HasTerms do
context "when included in a class" do
subject(:with_terms) { TestTemps::HasTermsDouble.new }
it_behaves_like "has terms"
end
end
# spec/model/contract_spec.rb
describe Contract do
it_behaves_like "has terms"
end
You could just test the module implicitly by leaving your tests in the classes that include this module. Alternatively, you can include other requisite modules in your dummy class. For instance, the validates methods in AR models are provided by ActiveModel::Validations. So, for your tests:
class DummyClass
include ActiveModel::Validations
include HasTerms
end
There may be other modules you need to bring in based on dependencies you implicitly rely on in your HasTerms module.
I was struggling with this myself and conjured up the following solution, which is much like rossta's idea but uses an anonymous class instead:
it 'validates terms' do
dummy_class = Class.new do
include ActiveModel::Validations
include HasTerms
attr_accessor :agrees_to_terms
def self.model_name
ActiveModel::Name.new(self, nil, "dummy")
end
end
dummy = dummy_class.new
dummy.should_not be_valid
end
Here is another example (using Factorygirl's "create" method" and shared_examples_for)
concern spec
#spec/support/concerns/commentable_spec
require 'spec_helper'
shared_examples_for 'commentable' do
let (:model) { create ( described_class.to_s.underscore ) }
let (:user) { create (:user) }
it 'has comments' do
expect { model.comments }.to_not raise_error
end
it 'comment method returns Comment object as association' do
model.comment(user, "description")
expect(model.comments.length).to eq(1)
end
it 'user can make multiple comments' do
model.comment(user, "description")
model.comment(user, "description")
expect(model.comments.length).to eq(2)
end
end
commentable concern
module Commentable
extend ActiveSupport::Concern
included do
has_many :comments, as: :commentable
end
def comment(user, description)
Comment.create(commentable_id: self.id,
commentable_type: self.class.name,
user_id: user.id,
description: description
)
end
end
and restraunt_spec may look something like this (I'm not Rspec guru so don't think that my way of writing specs is good - the most important thing is at the beginning):
require 'rails_helper'
RSpec.describe Restraunt, type: :model do
it_behaves_like 'commentable'
describe 'with valid data' do
let (:restraunt) { create(:restraunt) }
it 'has valid factory' do
expect(restraunt).to be_valid
end
it 'has many comments' do
expect { restraunt.comments }.to_not raise_error
end
end
describe 'with invalid data' do
it 'is invalid without a name' do
restraunt = build(:restraunt, name: nil)
restraunt.save
expect(restraunt.errors[:name].length).to eq(1)
end
it 'is invalid without description' do
restraunt = build(:restraunt, description: nil)
restraunt.save
expect(restraunt.errors[:description].length).to eq(1)
end
it 'is invalid without location' do
restraunt = build(:restraunt, location: nil)
restraunt.save
expect(restraunt.errors[:location].length).to eq(1)
end
it 'does not allow duplicated name' do
restraunt = create(:restraunt, name: 'test_name')
restraunt2 = build(:restraunt, name: 'test_name')
restraunt2.save
expect(restraunt2.errors[:name].length).to eq(1)
end
end
end
Building on Aaron K's excellent answer here, there are some nice tricks you can use with described_class that RSpec provides to make your methods ubiquitous and make factories work for you. Here's a snippet of a shared example I recently made for an application:
shared_examples 'token authenticatable' do
describe '.find_by_authentication_token' do
context 'valid token' do
it 'finds correct user' do
class_symbol = described_class.name.underscore
item = create(class_symbol, :authentication_token)
create(class_symbol, :authentication_token)
item_found = described_class.find_by_authentication_token(
item.authentication_token
)
expect(item_found).to eq item
end
end
context 'nil token' do
it 'returns nil' do
class_symbol = described_class.name.underscore
create(class_symbol)
item_found = described_class.find_by_authentication_token(nil)
expect(item_found).to be_nil
end
end
end
end

Reusing RSpec behavior validation

In my Rails 3 application, I have a RSpec spec that checks behavior of a given field (role in the User model) to guarantee that the value is within a list of valid values.
Now I am going to have the exact same spec for another field, in another model with another set of valid values. I would like to extract the common code instead of merely copying and pasting it, changing the variables.
I am wondering if this would be the case to use a shared example or other RSpec reuse technique.
Here's the relevant RSpec code:
describe "validation" do
describe "#role" do
context "with a valid role value" do
it "is valid" do
User::ROLES.each do |role|
build(:user, :role => role).should be_valid
end
end
end
context "with an empty role" do
subject { build(:user, :role => nil) }
it "is invalid" do
subject.should_not be_valid
end
it "adds an error message for the role" do
subject.save.should be_false
subject.errors.messages[:role].first.should == "can't be blank"
end
end
context "with an invalid role value" do
subject { build(:user, :role => 'unknown') }
it "is invalid" do
subject.should_not be_valid
end
it "adds an error message for the role" do
subject.save.should be_false
subject.errors.messages[:role].first.should =~ /unknown isn't a valid role/
end
end
end
end
What would be the best case to reuse this code, but extracting role (the field being verified) and User::ROLES (the collection of valid values) into parameters being passed to this code?
I think this is a perfectly reasonable use case for shared examples. e.g. something like this:
shared_examples_for "attribute in collection" do |attr_name, valid_values|
context "with a valid role value" do
it "is valid" do
valid_values.each do |role|
build(:user, attr_name => role).should be_valid
end
end
end
context "with an empty #{attr_name}" do
subject { build(:user, attr_name => nil) }
it "is invalid" do
subject.should_not be_valid
end
it "adds an error message for the #{attr_name}" do
subject.save.should be_false
subject.errors.messages[attr_name].first.should == "can't be blank"
end
end
context "with an invalid #{attr_name} value" do
subject { build(:user, attr_name => 'unknown') }
it "is invalid" do
subject.should_not be_valid
end
it "adds an error message for the #{attr_name}" do
subject.save.should be_false
subject.errors.messages[attr_name].first.should =~ /unknown isn't a valid #{attr_name}/
end
end
end
Then you can call it in your specs like this:
describe "validation" do
describe "#role" do
behaves_like "attribute in collection", :role, User::ROLES
end
end
Haven't tested this but I think it should work.
You can DRY your spec with shared_examples technic this way:
shared_examples "no role" do
it "is invalid" do
subject.should_not be_valid
end
end
context "with an empty role" do
subject { Factory.build(:user, :name => nil) }
it_behaves_like "no role"
end
context "with an invalid role value" do
subject { Factory.build(:user, :name => '') }
it_behaves_like "no role"
end
But what about your idea to DRY few specs..I think it's too much. I'm convince that spec has to be readable firstly and only then DRY'ing. If you DRY few specs, it will be probably a headache for future reading/refactoring/changing this code.

Trouble on specifying explicit 'subject's?

I am using Ruby on Rails 3.0.9 and RSpect 2. I am trying to refactoring some spec file in the following way (in order to test with less code similar User class object attribute values):
describe User do
let(:user1) { Factory(:user, :users_attribute_a => 'invalid_value') }
let(:user2) { Factory(:user, :users_attribute_b => 'invalid_value') }
let(:user3) { Factory(:user, :users_attribute_c => 'invalid_value') }
it "foreach user" do
[ user1, user2, user3 ].each do |user|
subject { user }
it "should be whatever"
user.should_not be_valid
...
end
end
end
end
However, if I run the above test I get the following error:
Failure/Error: it "should be whatever" do
NoMethodError:
undefined method `it' for #<RSpec::Core::ExampleGroup::Nested_1::Nested_2::Nested_2:0x00000106ccee60>
What is the problem? How can I solve that?
UPDATE after the #Emily answer.
If in the above code I use context "foreach user" do ... instead of it "foreach user" do ... I get the following error:
undefined local variable or method `user1' for #<Class:0x00000105310758> (NameError)
The problem is having one spec nested within another. You need to replace it "foreach user" with context "foreach user".
Edited to add: After some investigation, it looks like helpers set with let are only available inside of the it "should ..." block, and not in the surrounding context. I'd recommend is trying to find a different structural solution. What the best solution is will depend on what you're actually trying to test. I'm guessing what you're trying to do is make sure the user is invalid when you remove any of the required attributes. In that case, what I've done is something like this:
describe User do
let(:user_attributes){ Factory.attributes_for(:user) }
# Testing missing values aren't valid
[:name, :email, :phone].each do |required_attribute|
it "should not be valid without #{required_attribute}" do
User.new(user_attributes.except(required_attribute)).should_not be_valid
end
end
# Testing invalid values aren't valid
[[:email, 'not_an_email'], [:phone, 'not a phone']].each do |(attribute, value)|
it "should not be valid with bad value for #{attribute}" do
User.new(user_attributes.update(attribute => value)).should_not be_valid
end
end
end
If you're doing something that requires more complex differences in the instance you're creating, there may not be a clean way to do it with iteration. I don't think DRY is quite as essential in testing as it is in other parts of your code. There's nothing wrong with having three different contexts for the three user types, and a validity test in each context.
describe User do
context "with user1" do
subject{ Factory(:user, :users_attribute_a => 'invalid_value') }
it{ should_not be_valid }
end
context "with user2" do
subject{ Factory(:user, :users_attribute_b => 'invalid_value') }
it{ should_not be_valid }
end
context "with user3" do
subject{ Factory(:user, :users_attribute_c => 'invalid_value') }
it{ should_not be_valid }
end
end
You're mixing and matching all sorts of rspec stuff. Here's your stuff, fixed:
describe User do
let(:user1) { Factory(:user, :users_attribute_a => 'invalid_value') }
let(:user2) { Factory(:user, :users_attribute_b => 'invalid_value') }
let(:user3) { Factory(:user, :users_attribute_c => 'invalid_value') }
it "should not be valid" do
[ user1, user2, user3 ].each do |user|
user.should_not be_valid
end
end
end
I would do it this way:
describe User do
subject{Factory.build(:user)}
it "should not be valid with invalid users_attribute_a" do
subject.users_attribute_a = "invalid_value"
subject.should_not be_valid
end
it "should not be valid with invalid users_attribute_b" do
subject.users_attribute_b = "invalid_value"
subject.should_not be_valid
end
end
If you want to have "context", then cool, but you can't have variables before your context inside of your context.
If you want to have a specification, then have one, but you can't net "it" statements
UPDATE WITH LEAST POSSIBLE CODE
describe User do
it "should not be valid with other attributes" do
{:users_attribute_a => 'invalid_value', :users_attribute_b => 'invalid_value', :users_attribute_c => 'invalid_value'}.each do |key, value|
Factory.build(:user, key => value).should_not be_valid
end
end
end
The problem is that the helpers that are set with "let" do not exist outside of a example context.
What you're trying to do could be achieved as:
it "does something with all users" do
[user1, user2, user3] do |user|
user.valid?.should be_true
end
end
Both contexts are different
Another way it might work (haven't tried it) it's like this:
context "for all users" do
[:user1, :user2, :user3].each do |user|
it "does something" do
send(user).valid?.should be_true
end
end
end
This should work. Note how the context is written, it will make the output of tests clearer. From writing it this way it implies (to me) that you should make a test for each attribute separately, but it's your choice:
describe User do
let!(:users) {
[:users_attribute_a, :users_attribute_b, :users_attribute_c].map do |a|
Factory(:user, => 'invalid_value')
end
}
context "Given a user" do
context "With an invalid value" do
subject { users }
it { subject.all?{|user| should_not be_valid }
end
end
end

Resources