I have 2 models, one which accepts attributes for the other and I'm trying to find a clever way to use Factory girl to setup the data for both.
Class Booking
has_many :booking_items
accepts_nested_attributes_for :booking_items
Class BookingItem
belong_to :booking
my factory
Factory.define :booking do |f|
f.bookdate Date.today+15.days
f.association :space
f.nights 2
f.currency "EUR"
f.booking_item_attributes Factory.build(:booking_item) # doesn't work
end
Factory.define :booking_item do |f|
f.association :room
f.bookdate Date.today
f.people 2
f.total_price 20
f.association :booking
end
booking_spec
require "spec_helper"
describe Booking do
before(:each) do
#booking = Factory.create(:booking)
end
it "should be valid" do
#needs children to be valid
#booking.should be_valid
end
end
I looked around the rdocs but couldn't seem to find what I was looking for.
If I understood you correctly, you want to do this, but with terser syntax:
booking_item = Factory(:booking_item, :people => 4)
booking = Factory(:booking, :booking_item => booking_item)
Of cause you can shortcut it like this:
def with_assocs factory, assocs_hashes = {}, attrs = {}
assoc_models = Hash[ assocs_hash.map { |k, v| [k, Factory(k, v)] } ]
Factory factory, attrs.merge(assoc_models)
end
And use like this:
#booking = with_assocs :booking, :booking_item => {:people => 3}
#booking.should be_valid
In active_factory plugin with similar factory definitions it would look like this:
models { booking - booking_item(:people => 3) }
booking.should be_valid
Unfortunately I haven't yet implemented integration with factory_girl. Though if you interested any input is very welcome.
Related
The method itself works as expected, but when I try to test it in the model spec the create part fails. The find part works well. What did I miss?
conversation.rb
scope :between, -> (sender_id, recipient_id) do
where("(conversations.sender_id = ? AND conversations.recipient_id = ?) OR (conversations.sender_id = ? AND conversations.recipient_id = ?)", sender_id, recipient_id, recipient_id, sender_id)
end
def self.create_or_find_conversation(task_assigner_id, task_executor_id)
Conversation.between(task_assigner_id, task_executor_id).first_or_create do |conversation|
conversation.sender_id = task_assigner_id
conversation.recipient_id = task_executor_id
end
end
conversation_spec.rb
describe "class methods" do
let(:sender) { create(:user) }
let(:recipient) { create(:user) }
let(:other_recipient) { create(:user) }
let!(:conversation) { create(:conversation, sender: sender, recipient: recipient) }
context "create_of_find_conversation" do
#this one throws Failure/Error: expect{conv}.to change{Conversation.count}.by(1)
#expected result to have changed by 1, but was changed by 0
it "creates conversation" do
conv = Conversation.create_or_find_conversation(sender, other_recipient)
expect{conv}.to change{Conversation.count}.by(1)
end
#this one is working as expected
it "finds conversation" do
conv = Conversation.create_or_find_conversation(sender, recipient)
expect(conv).to eq(conversation)
end
end
end
I think these code:
it "creates conversation" do
conv = Conversation.create_or_find_conversation(sender, other_recipient)
expect{conv}.to change{Conversation.count}.by(1)
end
should be changed to:
it "creates conversation" do
expect{
Conversation.create_or_find_conversation(sender.id, other_recipient.id)
}.to change{Conversation.count}.by(1)
end
because it was't the value changed the count, but the process.
Regular variables in Ruby are not lazy loading - the right side of the assignment is processed when the variable is assigned.
def do_something(val)
puts "do_something called"
val
end
a = do_something(hello_world)
puts a
# do_something called
# hello world
You would either need to change expection so that the action is called inside the block passed to expect:
it "creates conversation" do
expect do
Conversation.create_or_find_conversation(sender, other_recipient)
end.to change{Conversation.count}.by(1)
end
Or use RSpec's let to create a lazy loading variable:
let(:conv) { Conversation.create_or_find_conversation(sender, other_recipient) }
it "creates conversation" do
expect { conv }.to change{Conversation.count}.by(1)
end
But that does not fix the underlying problem that you are modeling the domain wrong. In a conversation both the sides take turns speaking - so using a recipient_id and sender_id is just plain wrong. Rather its messages that have a sender and receiver.
You can change them to be called whatever you want but it is much simpler to use a proper many to many relation so that you don't need a complex AND OR query.
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :user_conversations
has_many :conversations, through: user_conversations
end
class Conversation < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :user_conversations
has_many :users, through: user_conversations
end
# the m2m join model.
class UserCoversation < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :conversation
end
You can then simply query:
Conversation.where(users: [a, b])
I'm getting the following error when running my test.
NoMethodError: undefined method 'departure_date' for nil:NilClass
Here is the test.
test "successful disbursement should respond with success" do
post :disbursement, {id: #invoice.invoice_id, trip: attributes_for(:trip)}
assert_response :success
end
In the setup portion of the test I'm creating the following.
setup do
#controller = Api::V1::InvoicesController.new
#invoice = create(:invoice)
#trip = create(:trip)
end
The trip factory looks like this.
FactoryGirl.define do
factory :trip do
depart_airport "MCI"
arrive_airport "ORD"
passenger_first_name "Joe"
passenger_last_name "Business"
passenger_count 1
departure_date {10.days.from_now}
invoice
end
end
The invoice factory looks like this.
FactoryGirl.define do
factory :invoice do
sequence(:invoice_id) { |n| "INV#{n}"}
merchant
amount 500.00
item_count 5
paid false
currency "GBP"
invoice_type "pre-flight"
end
end
Can't quite figure out how to make sure the invoice has a trip. I'm guessing this is why the test can't find the departure_date it should.
From what I understand, you are trying to associate the trip and invoice. If my understanding is correct, try this.
setup do
#controller = Api::V1::InvoicesController.new
#invoice = create(:invoice)
#trip = create(:trip, invoice: #invoice)
end
I have an (I think) relatively straightforward has_many :through relationship with a join table:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :user_following_thing_relationships
has_many :things, :through => :user_following_thing_relationships
end
class Thing < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :user_following_thing_relationships
has_many :followers, :through => :user_following_thing_relationships, :source => :user
end
class UserFollowingThingRelationship < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :thing
belongs_to :user
end
And these rspec tests (I know these are not necessarily good tests, these are just to illustrate what's happening):
describe Thing do
before(:each) do
#user = User.create!(:name => "Fred")
#thing = Thing.create!(:name => "Foo")
#user.things << #thing
end
it "should have created a relationship" do
UserFollowingThingRelationship.first.user.should == #user
UserFollowingThingRelationship.first.thing.should == #thing
end
it "should have followers" do
#thing.followers.should == [#user]
end
end
This works fine UNTIL I add an after_save to the Thing model that references its followers. That is, if I do
class Thing < ActiveRecord::Base
after_save :do_stuff
has_many :user_following_thing_relationships
has_many :followers, :through => :user_following_thing_relationships, :source => :user
def do_stuff
followers.each { |f| puts "I'm followed by #{f.name}" }
end
end
Then the second test fails - i.e., the relationship is still added to the join table, but #thing.followers returns an empty array. Furthermore, that part of the callback never gets called (as if followers is empty within the model). If I add a puts "HI" in the callback before the followers.each line, the "HI" shows up on stdout, so I know the callback is being called. If I comment out the followers.each line, then the tests pass again.
If I do this all through the console, it works fine. I.e., I can do
>> t = Thing.create!(:name => "Foo")
>> t.followers # []
>> u = User.create!(:name => "Bar")
>> u.things << t
>> t.followers # [u]
>> t.save # just to be super duper sure that the callback is triggered
>> t.followers # still [u]
Why is this failing in rspec? Am I doing something horribly wrong?
Update
Everything works if I manually define Thing#followers as
def followers
user_following_thing_relationships.all.map{ |r| r.user }
end
This leads me to believe that perhaps I am defining my has_many :through with :source incorrectly?
Update
I've created a minimal example project and put it on github: https://github.com/dantswain/RspecHasMany
Another Update
Thanks a ton to #PeterNixey and #kikuchiyo for their suggestions below. The final answer turned out to be a combination of both answers and I wish I could split credit between them. I've updated the github project with what I think is the cleanest solution and pushed the changes: https://github.com/dantswain/RspecHasMany
I would still love it if someone could give me a really solid explanation of what is going on here. The most troubling bit for me is why, in the initial problem statement, everything (except the operation of the callback itself) would work if I commented out the reference to followers.
I've had similar problems in the past that have been resolved by reloading the association (rather than the parent object).
Does it work if you reload thing.followers in the RSpec?
it "should have followers" do
#thing.followers.reload
#thing.followers.should == [#user]
end
EDIT
If (as you mention) you're having problems with the callbacks not getting fired then you could do this reloading in the object itself:
class Thing < ActiveRecord::Base
after_save { followers.reload}
after_save :do_stuff
...
end
or
class Thing < ActiveRecord::Base
...
def do_stuff
followers.reload
...
end
end
I don't know why RSpec has issues with not reloading associations but I've hit the same types of problems myself
Edit 2
Although #dantswain confirmed that the followers.reload helped alleviate some of the problems it still didn't fix all of them.
To do that, the solution needed a fix from #kikuchiyo which required calling save after doing the callbacks in Thing:
describe Thing do
before :each do
...
#user.things << #thing
#thing.run_callbacks(:save)
end
...
end
Final suggestion
I believe this is happening because of the use of << on a has_many_through operation. I don't see that the << should in fact trigger your after_save event at all:
Your current code is this:
describe Thing do
before(:each) do
#user = User.create!(:name => "Fred")
#thing = Thing.create!(:name => "Foo")
#user.things << #thing
end
end
class Thing < ActiveRecord::Base
after_save :do_stuff
...
def do_stuff
followers.each { |f| puts "I'm followed by #{f.name}" }
end
end
and the problem is that the do_stuff is not getting called. I think this is the correct behaviour though.
Let's go through the RSpec:
describe Thing do
before(:each) do
#user = User.create!(:name => "Fred")
# user is created and saved
#thing = Thing.create!(:name => "Foo")
# thing is created and saved
#user.things << #thing
# user_thing_relationship is created and saved
# no call is made to #user.save since nothing is updated on the user
end
end
The problem is that the third step does not actually require the thing object to be resaved - its simply creating an entry in the join table.
If you'd like to make sure that the #user does call save you could probably get the effect you want like this:
describe Thing do
before(:each) do
#thing = Thing.create!(:name => "Foo")
# thing is created and saved
#user = User.create!(:name => "Fred")
# user is created BUT NOT SAVED
#user.things << #thing
# user_thing_relationship is created and saved
# #user.save is also called as part of the addition
end
end
You may also find that the after_save callback is in fact on the wrong object and that you'd prefer to have it on the relationship object instead. Finally, if the callback really does belong on the user and you do need it to fire after creating the relationship you could use touch to update the user when a new relationship is created.
UPDATED ANSWER **
This passes rspec, without stubbing, running callbacks for save (after_save callback included ), and checks that #thing.followers is not empty before trying to access its elements. (;
describe Thing do
before :each do
#user = User.create(:name => "Fred");
#thing = Thing.new(:name => 'Foo')
#user.things << #thing
#thing.run_callbacks(:save)
end
it "should have created a relationship" do
#thing.followers.should == [#user]
puts #thing.followers.inspect
end
end
class Thing < ActiveRecord::Base
after_save :some_function
has_many :user_following_thing_relationships
has_many :followers, :through => :user_following_thing_relationships, :source => :user
def some_function
the_followers = followers
unless the_followers.empty?
puts "accessing followers here: the_followers = #{the_followers.inspect}..."
end
end
end
ORIGINAL ANSWER **
I was able to get things to work with the after_save callback, so long as I did not reference followers within the body / block of do_stuff. Do you have to reference followers in the real method you are calling from after_save ?
Updated code to stub out callback. Now model can remain as you need it, we show #thing.followers is indeed set as we expected, and we can investigate the functionality of do_stuff / some_function via after_save in a different spec.
I pushed a copy of the code here: https://github.com/kikuchiyo/RspecHasMany
And spec passing thing* code is below:
# thing_spec.rb
require 'spec_helper'
describe Thing do
before :each do
Thing.any_instance.stub(:some_function) { puts 'stubbed out...' }
Thing.any_instance.should_receive(:some_function).once
#thing = Thing.create(:name => "Foo");
#user = User.create(:name => "Fred");
#user.things << #thing
end
it "should have created a relationship" do
#thing.followers.should == [#user]
puts #thing.followers.inspect
end
end
# thing.rb
class Thing < ActiveRecord::Base
after_save :some_function
has_many :user_following_thing_relationships
has_many :followers, :through => :user_following_thing_relationships, :source => :user
def some_function
# well, lets me do this, but I cannot use #x without breaking the spec...
#x = followers
puts 'testing puts hear shows up in standard output'
x ||= 1
puts "testing variable setting and getting here: #{x} == 1\n\t also shows up in standard output"
begin
# If no stubbing, this causes rspec to fail...
puts "accessing followers here: #x = #{#x.inspect}..."
rescue
puts "and this is but this is never seen."
end
end
end
My guess is that you need to reload your Thing instance by doing #thing.reload (I'm sure there's a way to avoid this, but that might get your test passing at first and then you can figure out where you've gone wrong).
Few questions:
I don't see you calling #thing.save in your spec. Are you doing that, just like in your console example?
Why are you calling t.save and not u.save in your console test, considering you're pushing t onto u? Saving u should trigger a save to t, getting the end result you want, and I think it would "make more sense" considering you are really working on u, not t.
I would like to create complex rest object instances with a single rest call using rails.
In the example case below I get an error in the controller when I call new on Person with a parameter hash.
I get an error for unexpected type when seeing a ActiveSupport::HashWithIndifferentAccess and not a PhoneNumber
The hash passed from the test contains an array of Hash objects, while the controller action parameters create ActiveSupport::HashWithIndifferentAccess objects.
Any suggestions to fix the error?
Is there an easier way to create complex activerecord objects with a single rest call.
ie models:
class Person < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :phone_numbers , :autosave => true
class PhoneNumber < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :person
person_controller_test.rb
test "should create person" do
newperson=Person.new(:name => "test")
newperson.phone_numbers << PhoneNumber.new(:number => "123-4567")
person_string= newperson.to_xml(:include => :phone_numbers)
person_hash=Hash.from_xml(course_string)
person_hash2=person_hash['person']
post :create, :person => person_hash2, :format => "xml"
assert_response :success
end
person_controller.rb
def create
#person = Person.new(params[:person])
class Person < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :phone_numbers , :autosave => true
# this is important for create complex nested object in one call
accepts_nested_attributes_for :phone_numbers
end
class PhoneNumber < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :person
end
person_controller_test.rb
test "should create person" do
newperson=Person.new(:name => "test")
newperson.phone_numbers.build(:number => "123-4567") #more cleaner
# and start from here I'm not sure but this maybe help you
# I think that you must pass a json object
post :create, :person => newperson.to_json(:include => :phone_numbers), :format => "xml"
assert_response :success
end
link: http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/NestedAttributes/ClassMethods.html
Dinatih, Thanks for the helpful answer! It helped solve the issue.
I ran into a slight problem since with "accepts_nested_attributes_for :phone_numbers",
the hash key 'phone_numbers_attributes' is needed instead of the to_xml/to_json serialization default of 'phone_numbers'. The test code (below) looks a little ugly, but it passes and creates the object correctly. Also passing json to the post method unfortunately doesn't create the object.
test "should create complex person" do
newperson=Person.new(:name => "test")
newperson.phone_numbers.build(:number => "123-4567")
person_string= newperson.to_xml(:include => :phone_numbers)
person_hash=Hash.from_xml(person_string)
person_hash2=person_hash['person']
person_hash2[:phone_numbers_attributes] = person_hash2['phone_numbers']
person_hash2.delete('phone_numbers')
p person_hash2
post :create, :person => person_hash2, :format => "xml"
p response.body
assert_select "person" do
assert_select "name", {:text=>"test"}
assert_select "phone-numbers" do
assert_select "phone-number" do
assert_select "number", {:text=>"123-4567"}
end
end
end
assert_response :success
end
you should also check out:
Gem nested_form :
https://github.com/ryanb/nested_form
examples for nested_form: https://github.com/ryanb/complex-form-examples/tree/nested_form
and
RailsCasts 196 / 197
http://railscasts.com/episodes/196-nested-model-form-part-1
http://railscasts.com/episodes/197-nested-model-form-part-2
I'm having a problem testing the following model:
class Bill < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :consignee
before_save :calc_rate
def calc_rate
self.chargeableweight = self.consignee.destination.rate * self.weight
end
end
The consignee model:
class Consignee < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :destination
has_many :bills
end
The controllers are not touched yet.
The behavior of the app is correct (follow up question: are there any performance problems with that solution?) - but the the test break.
You have a nil object when you didn't
expect it! You might have expected an
instance of Array. The error occurred
while evaluating nil.*
Thank you in advice,
Danny
update:
This bill test breaks using factory girl:
describe Bill do
it "should call the calc_rate method" do
bill = Factory.build(:bill)
bill.save!
bill.should_receive(:calc_rate)
end
end
You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
Factories:
Factory.define :destination do |f|
f.airport_code "JFK"
end
Factory.define :consignee do |f|
...
f.association :destination
end
Factory.define :bill do |f|
f.association :consignee
f.weight 10
f.chargeableweight 20.0
f.after_create do |bill|
bill.calc_rate
end
describe Consignee do
it "should calculate the rate" do
#pending
#make sure this spec is passing first, so you know your calc_rate method is fine.
end
it "should accept calc_rate before save" do
cosignee = mock("Consignee")
consignee.should_receive(:calc_rate).and_return(2) # => stubbing your value
end
end
I didn't spool up a rails app to test this code, but this should get you close. also, assuming that the columns chargeable_rate, weight, etc are columns on the model, you dont need to call self. Ruby will implicitly expect self if there is no instance method or variable of that name available it will automatically look for class methods.