Just wondering how to test that actionmailer requests are actually sent to the delayed_job que in rspec.
I would have assumed it was quite simple, but my delayed_job queue doesn't seem to be incrementing. Code below:
Controller:
def create
#contact = Contact.new(params[:contact])
if #contact.save
contactmailer = ContactMailer
contactmailer.delay.contact_message(#contact)
redirect_to(contacts_url)
else
render :action => "new"
end
Spec:
it "queues mail when a contact is created" do
expectedcount = Delayed::Job.count + 1
Contact.stub(:new).with(mock_contact()) { mock_contact(:save => true) }
post :create, :contact => mock_contact
expectedcount.should eq(Delayed::Job.count)
end
Both before and after the call to the controller, the Delayed::Job.count returns 0. I've tried taking the conditional out of the controller, but I still can't get the delayed job count to increment.
Any suggestions appreciated - cheer
You can also test what the jobs will do by running them or turning off queuing.
Tweak config whenever you want (i.e. in a before :each block).
Delayed::Worker.delay_jobs = false
or perform your saved jobs
Delayed::Worker.new.work_off.should == [1, 0]
I have been using this method happily for a while. For one thing, using the new any_instance support in RSpec, you can test your delayed methods effects directly. However, I've found tests that use work_off to be slow.
What I usually do now is:
mock_delay = double('mock_delay').as_null_object
MyClass.any_instance.stub(:delay).and_return(mock_delay)
mock_delay.should_receive(:my_delayed_method)
Then I have a separate spec for my_delayed_method. This is much faster, and probably better unit testing practice -- particularly for controllers. Though if you're doing request specs or other integration-level specs, then you probably still want to use work_off.
I think your mock object is somehow introducing an error -- it's hard to tell exactly how without seeing the definition of the mock_contact method.
In any case, you might try something along these lines:
it "queues mail when a contact is created" do
Contact.stub(:new) { mock_model(Contact,:save => true) }
Delayed::Job.count.should == 0
post :create, {}
Delayed::Job.count.should == 1
end
or the sexier version (caveat: I always end up doing it the non-sexy way):
it "queues mail when a contact is created" do
Contact.stub(:new) { mock_model(Contact,:save => true) }
expect {
post :create, {}
}.to change(Delayed::Job.count).by(1)
end
You can also follow the convention (from Railscast 275) of
ActionMailer::Base.deliveries.last.to.should == user.email
but instead do this:
Delayed::Job.last.handler.should have_content(user.email)
This thread is a bit old, but here is my go at it:
Create a function expect_jobs
def expect_jobs n, time = nil
expect(Delayed::Job.count).to eq(n)
Timecop.travel(time) unless time.nil?
successes, failures = Delayed::Worker.new.work_off
expect(successes).to eq(n)
expect(failures).to eq(0)
expect(Delayed::Job.count).to eq(0)
Timecop.travel(Time.now) unless time.nil?
end
Then simply call it before checking if the callback has done its job. eg:
it "sends a chapter to the admin user" do
post :chapter_to_user, { chapter: #book.chapters.first}
expect_jobs(1)
SubscribeMailer.should have(1).delivery
SubscribeMailer.deliveries.should have(1).attachment
end
This seems to work on my side, and allows me to run both my delayed jobs and my methods.
#zetetic I think we have to pass block in change method here.
It shoulb be like this:
it "queues mail when a contact is created" do
Contact.stub(:new) { mock_model(Contact,:save => true) }
expect {
post :create, {}
}.to change { Delayed::Job.count }.by(1)
end
Related
I'm currently trying to write a test for this method:
#fetch message from api
def message_instance
project_id = ENV['SIGNALWIRE_PROJECT_KEY']
project_tkn = ENV['SIGNALWIRE_TOKEN']
host_url = ENV['SIGNALWIRE_HOST']
#client = Signalwire::REST::Client.new project_id, project_tkn, signalwire_space_url: host_url
message = #client.messages(sid).fetch
end
and am using FactoryBot to simulate a received message
#message = build :message, status: :received
But I can't get my head around how to test every line of the method. Hoping someone can break down how I can properly stub a request for this?
Edit: I so far I've tried this:
describe 'message_instance' do
it 'returns message instance' do
allow(ENV).to receive(:[]).with('SIGNALWIRE_PROJECT_KEY').and_return('AC123')
#message = build :message, status: 'received', sid: '123456789'
#message.message_instance.should eq #client
end
end
which returns this error:
"BUNDLER_ORIG_RUBYLIB"=>"BUNDLER_ENVIRONMENT_PRESERVER_INTENTIONALLY_NIL", "BUNDLER_ORIG_RUBYOPT"=>"BUNDLER_ENVIRONMENT_PRESERVER_INTENTIONALLY_NIL", "BUNDLE_GEMFILE"=>"/vagrant/oyetext-backend/Gemfile", "BUNDLE_BIN_PATH"=>"/usr/share/rvm/rubies/ruby-2.7.2/lib/ruby/gems/2.7.0/gems/bundler-2.1.4/libexec/bundle", "BUNDLER_VERSION"=>"2.1.4", "RUBYOPT"=>"-r/usr/share/rvm/rubies/ruby-2.7.2/lib/ruby/2.7.0/bundler/setup", "RUBYLIB"=>"", "RAILS_ENV"=>"test", "SIGNALWIRE_PROJECT_KEY"=>"test", "SIGNALWIRE_TOKEN"=>"test", "SIGNALWIRE_NUMBER"=>"+19999999999"} received :[] with unexpected arguments
expected: ("SIGNALWIRE_PROJECT_KEY")
got: ("SIGNALWIRE_TOKEN")
Please stub a default value first if message might be received with other args as well.
I don't really think stubbing ENV is a good idea, as you could see that is used for way more stuff than your code logic, like bundler or ruby itself.
Instead of calling allow(ENV).to..., I'd try just with:
ENV['SIGNALWIRE_PROJECT_KEY'] = 'AC123'
I've got this method
def finalize_inquiry_process(form)
if finalize_process == true
inquiry_process.campaign_code.update(state: 'used')
document_creator_class = InquiryProcessDocumentCreatorFetcher.new(inquiry_process).call
document_creator_class.new(inquiry_process).call
end
Success(form)
end
and I want to skip in specs this part which is really trouble maker, implementation is an unnecessary waste of time (pdf generator with tons of fields)
document_creator_class = InquiryProcessDocumentCreatorFetcher.new(inquiry_process).call
document_creator_class.new(inquiry_process).call
To do so I wrote a specs:
let(:fetcher_instance) { instance_double(InquiryProcessDocumentCreatorFetcher) }
before do
allow(InquiryProcessDocumentCreatorFetcher).to receive(:new).and_return(fetcher_instance)
allow(fetcher_instance).to receive(:call).and_return(nil)
end
it 'updates state of assigned campain code' do
updated_inquiry_process = process_update.value!
expect(updated_inquiry_process.campaign_code.state).to eq('used')
end
end
InquiryProcesses::Update.call campain code updates state of assigned campain code
Failure/Error: document_creator_class.new(inquiry_process).call
NoMethodError:
undefined method `new' for nil:NilClass
Is there any chance to skip this part of code in specs?
Ok I managed it by using receive_message_chain helper. Specs should looked like this:
describe 'finalize inquiry process' do
subject(:process_update) do
described_class.new(
inquiry_process: inquiry_process,
form: loan_application_inquiry_process_update_form,
finalize_process: true,
).call
end
let!(:inquiry_process) do
create :inquiry_process, inquiry_template: loan_inquiry_template, campaign_code_uid: campaign_code.uid
end
before do
allow(InquiryProcessDocumentCreatorFetcher).to receive_message_chain(:new, :call, :new, :call)
end
it 'updates state of assigned campain code' do
updated_inquiry_process = process_update.value!
expect(updated_inquiry_process.campaign_code.state).to eq('used')
end
end
You can try your luck with dependency injection:
(It's a rough sketch, but I don't know the context of the system, not even the whole class)
def initialize(inquiry_process:, form:, finalize_process:, creator_fetcher:)
#creator_fetcher = creator_fetcher
# all the other initializetions
# maybe you can initialize creator_fetcher outside, and no need to pass inquiry_process anymore?
end
def creator_fetcher
#creator_fetcher ||= InquiryProcessDocumentCreatorFetcher.new(inquiry_process)
end
def finalize_inquiry_process(form)
if finalize_process == true
inquiry_process.campaign_code.update(state: 'used')
document_creator_class = creator_fetcher.call
document_creator_class.new(inquiry_process).call
end
Success(form)
end
and then
let(:creator_fetcher) { instance_double(InquiryProcessDocumentCreatorFetcher) }
let(:document_creator_class) { instance_double(whatever_fetcher_call_returns_or_just_unveryfying_double) }
before { allow(creator_fetcher.to_receive(:call).and_return(document_creator_class) }
subject(:process_update) do
described_class.new(
inquiry_process: inquiry_process,
form: loan_application_inquiry_process_update_form,
finalize_process: true,
).call
end
Anyway - your problems with tests show's that your code was not written with the tests, and it's a bad design.
Indirection (Dependency Injection here) might help a little to untangle the mess.
I have a method call in a ruby model that looks like the following:
Contentful::PartnerCampaign.find_by(vanityUrl: referral_source).load.first
Within the models spec.rb file, I'm trying to mock that call and get a value by passing in a param. But I'm having trouble figuring out the correct way of calling it.
At the top of my spec.rb file I have:
let(:first_double) {
double("Contentful::Model", fields {:promotion_type => "Promotion 1"})
}
Within the describe block I've tried the following:
expect(Contentful::PartnerCampaign).to receive_message_chain(:find_by, :load, :first).
and_return(first_double)
expect(Contentful::PartnerCampaign).to receive_message_chain(:find_by, :load, :first).with(vanityUrl: 'test_promo_path').
and_return(first_double)
expect(Contentful::PartnerCampaign).to receive_message_chain(:find_by => vanityUrl: 'test_promo_path', :load, :first).
and_return(first_double)
As you can probably guess, none of these are working. Does anyone know the correct way to do this sort of thing? Is it even possible?
Generally speaking, I prefer not to use stub chains, as they are often a sign that you are violating the Law of Demeter. But, if I had to, this is how I would mock that sequence:
let(:vanity_url) { 'https://vanity.url' }
let(:partner_campaigns) { double('partner_campaigns') }
let(:loaded_partner_campaigns) { double('loaded_partner_campaigns') }
let(:partner_campaign) do
double("Contentful::Model", fields {:promotion_type => "Promotion 1"}
end
before do
allow(Contentful::PartnerCampaign)
.to receive(:find_by)
.with(vanity_url: vanity_url)
.and_return(partner_campaigns)
allow(partner_campaigns)
.to receive(:load)
.and_return(loaded_partner_campaigns)
allow(loaded_partner_campaigns)
.to receive(:first)
.and_return(partner_campaign)
end
This is what I would do. Notice that I split the "mocking" part and the "expecting" part, because usually I'll have some other it examples down below (of which then I'll need those it examples to also have the same "mocked" logic), and because I prefer them to have separate concerns: that is anything inside the it example should just normally focus on "expecting", and so any mocks or other logic, I normally put them outside the it.
let(:expected_referral_source) { 'test_promo_path' }
let(:contentful_model_double) { instance_double(Contentful::Model, promotion_type: 'Promotion 1') }
before(:each) do
# mock return values chain
# note that you are not "expecting" anything yet here
# you're just basically saying that: if Contentful::PartnerCampaign.find_by(vanityUrl: expected_referral_source).load.first is called, that it should return contentful_model_double
allow(Contentful::PartnerCampaign).to receive(:find_by).with(vanityUrl: expected_referral_source) do
double.tap do |find_by_returned_object|
allow(find_by_returned_object).to receive(:load) do
double.tap do |load_returned_object|
allow(load_returned_object).to receive(:first).and_return(contentful_model_double)
end
end
end
end
end
it 'calls Contentful::PartnerCampaign.find_by(vanityUrl: referral_source).load.first' do
expect(Contentful::PartnerCampaign).to receive(:find_by).once do |argument|
expect(argument).to eq({ vanityUrl: expected_referral_source})
double.tap do |find_by_returned_object|
expect(find_by_returned_object).to receive(:load).once do
double.tap do |load_returned_object|
expect(load_returned_object).to receive(:first).once
end
end
end
end
end
it 'does something...' do
# ...
end
it 'does some other thing...' do
# ...
end
If you do not know about ruby's tap method, feel free to check this out
I think you need to refactor the chain in two lines like this:
model = double("Contentful::Model", fields: { promotion_type: "Promotion 1" })
campaign = double
allow(Contentful::PartnerCampaign).to receive(:find_by).with(vanityUrl: 'test_promo_path').and_return(campaign)
allow(campaign).to receive_message_chain(:load, :first).and_return(model)
Then you can write your spec that will pass that attribute to find_by and check the chain.
I am trying to test the code inside a loop, how would I go about this:
class MyClass
def initialize(topics, env, config, limit)
#client = Twitter::Streaming::Client.new(config)
#topics = topics
#env = env
#limit = limit
end
def start
#client.filter(track: #topics.join(",")) do |object|
# how would I test the code inside here, basically logical stuff
next if !object.is_a?(Twitter::Tweet)
txt = get_txt(object.text)
end
end
Is there a way to do this?
If think that you can use a double of your Twitter::Streaming::Client that has a method filter and when this method is invoked it returns the desired output:
let(:client) { double 'Twitter Client', filter: twitters }
You will need to built manually the twitters object (sorry by my lack of context but I never used the Twitter client) and then you can make the assertions for the result of the start method.
As you can see, testing that code is quite tricky. This is because of the dependency on the Twitter client gem.
You can go down couple of paths:
Don't test it - the Twitter client gem should provide you with Twitter::Tweet objects. You only test your logic, i.e. get_txt method
Do what #Marcus Gomes said - create a collection double that has the filter method implemented.
What I would prefer to do is to stub the #client.filter call in the spec.
For example, in your spec:
some_collection_of_tweets = [
double(Twitter::Tweet, text: "I'll be back!"),
double(Twitter::Tweet, text: "I dare ya, I double dare ya!")
]
#my_class = MyClass.new(topics, env, config, limit)
allow(#my_class.client).to receive(:filter).and_return(some_collection_of_tweets)
This means that the some_collection_of_tweets collection will be returned every time the class calls #client.filter, and by having the data built by you, you what expectations to set.
One thing that you will have to change is to set an attr_reader :client on the class. The only side effect of this type of testing is that you are tying your code to the interfaces of the Twitter client.
But like everything else... tradeoffs :)
Hope that helps!
Perhaps you could do something like this if you really wanted to test your infinite loop logic?
RSpec.describe MyClass do
subject { MyClass.new(['foo','bar'], 'test', 'config', 1) }
let(:streaming_client) { Twitter::Streaming::Client.new }
describe '#start' do
let(:valid_tweet) { Twitter::Tweet.new(id: 1) }
before do
allow(Twitter::Streaming::Client).to receive(:new)
.with('config').and_return(streaming_client)
end
after { subject.start }
it '#get_txt receives valid tweets only' do
allow(valid_tweet).to receive(:text)
.and_return('Valid Tweet')
allow(streaming_client).to receive(:filter)
.with(track: 'foo,bar')
.and_yield(valid_tweet)
expect(subject).to receive(:get_txt)
.with('Valid Tweet')
end
it '#get_txt does not receive invalid tweets' do
allow(streaming_client).to receive(:filter)
.with(track: 'foo,bar')
.and_yield('Invalid Tweet')
expect(subject).not_to receive(:get_txt)
end
end
end
I have a few RSpec controller tests. Some work, some don't, and I'm trying to figure out how on Earth to fix them up and make them more efficient
Ideally, I would like to see if I can get each spec into the following form
subject { ... }
it { ... }
it { ... }
it { ... }
Note that for all of my controller specs I've written macros for the actual controller actions. The macros are all tested and all work, and the names make it fairly obvious what they do.
My "Create" test:
formats ||= ["html", "js"]
formats.each do |format|
context "valid attributes" do
subject { do_post_create( :customer, valid_attributes, format ) }
its(:response_code) { should eq(302)}
it { should redirect_to admin_customer_path(Customer.find_by_id(???))}
it { expect { subject }.to change(Customer, :count).by(1) }
end
context "invalid attributes" do
subject { do_post_create( :customer, invalid_attributes, format ) }
its(:response_code) { should eq(200)}
it { should render_template :new }
it { expect { subject }.to_not change(Customer, :count).by(1) }
end
end
In that spec, I've been trying to figure out some way to get the ID of the newly created object from the post statement. I've tried "Customer.last", but that doesn't seem to work. Any thoughts?
My "Update" spec:
formats ||= ["html", "js"]
formats.each do |format|
context "valid attributes" do
let(:object) { FactoryGirl.create(:customer) }
subject { do_put_update( class_to_symbol(model), object.id, attributes, format ) }
its(:response_code) { should eq(302)}
it "does alter #{model}" do
do_put_update( class_to_symbol(model), object.id, attributes, format )
assigns(:customer).should eq(object)
flash[:notice].should =~ /Success/
object.reload
attributes.each do |key, value|
object.send(key.to_s).should eq(value)
end
end
end
context "invalid attributes" do
let(:object) { FactoryGirl.create("customer") }
let(:invalid_attributes) { {:username => "!"} }
subject { do_put_update( class_to_symbol(model), object.id, invalid_attributes, format ) }
its(:response_code) { should eq(200)}
it "does not alter #{model}" do
do_put_update( class_to_symbol(model), object.id, invalid_attributes, format )
assigns(:customer).should eq(object)
flash[:notice].should =~ /Fail/
object.reload
attributes.each do |key, value|
object.send(key.to_s).should_not eq(value)
end
end
end
end
In the Update test, I would like to try to express the second block in a more concise way, ideally in a way that I can use the same "subject" statement for all of the tests. Is that possible?
I think you're over-thinking these specs. Instead of trying to force every spec into a predefined format (subject/it/...) write the specs so that they clearly document what should happen, then try to refactor the code afterwards.
Case in point: the use of the implicit subject for controller actions. subject and its are meant to be used with an object, not a method, and only really make sense when used that way. So for example, this makes sense:
subject { [1, 2, 3, 4] }
its(:size) { should == 4 }
Here, it's absolutely clear what is being tested: a 4-element array has a size of 4.
However, when you write:
subject { do_post_create( :customer, valid_attributes, format ) }
its(:response_code) { should eq(302)}
it's not really clear where you are getting that response code from without inspecting the do_post_create action. You say that the names of the macros "make it fairly obvious what they do", but they don't make it fairly obvious what they will return, and this is key for using the implicit subject because it's the return value that becomes the subject.
It would be much clearer just to write:
it "responds with a 302" do
do_post_create(:customer, valid_attributes, format)
response.should eq(302)
end
I also don't recommend mixing specs with and without implicit subjects, since it makes it yet more confusing what you are actually testing. In your invalid attributes context block, for example, you set a subject, but then in your second spec you actually test assignment of customer (assigns(:customer).should eq(object)), so basically the subject is irrelevant for this test. (However by setting the subject here and then not using it you are actually sending a PUT request twice (through do_put_update), which is bound to cause problems -- again, another reason not to be making requests in a subject block.)
I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Making specs short and sweet is great if you can do it without hurting readability, but in this case I think you've gone overboard.
Just my two cents, hope it helps.
p.s. In case the views above seem a bit extreme, read the documentation for implicit subjects, where you'll see that they actually recommend against using implicit subjects at all in public-facing tests:
While the examples below demonstrate how subject can be used as a user-facing concept, we recommend that you reserve it for support of custom matchers and/or extension libraries that hide its use from examples.