When I run "rake", it's loading up one of the models among all of the classes I have in my app/models directory. The thing is, it's not one I have a test for, it's just a model I have in there that is actually used with script/runner to run in the background and perform tasks for my main Rails application. At the end of the file I've got it creating a new instance of the class above and then running main for the class.
Since it loops indefinitely I definitely do not want it started up by the testing code. Why would the unit testing or Rake involve this other class in any way?
To my shame, I haven't been writing any tests for this code and I decided I would start writing some, but this stopped me right away because I can't even run Rake for what is out there now without it going haywire.
I'm not sure it's Rake's fault - I have a feeling that when you add :environment as a dependency, you're bringing up the whole Rails infrastructure, which may well involve requiring every model file (this is fairly wild guesswork - I haven't followed the boot process that deeply yet).
However it's happening, it seems that your model is being required, at which point all hell breaks loose.
Looking at script/runner and more usefully, railties/lb/commands/runner.rb, the execution sequence seems to be something like:
require 'boot' # boot the Rails app
eval(File.read(code_or_file)) # run what you asked for
That second line (it's actually around line 45 in runner.rb) looks like the key. How would it be if you defined a separate script (in /lib, say?) that contained the code that runs your model? I think that would probably be a more Rails-ish way to do it. And it would probably stop Rake messing up your tests...
Related
Is it possible to tell rspec to restart Rails before an example is run? I'm building an Engine that hooks into the Rails initialization process and the users can make some configuration changes, in an initializer, that impact how Rails and the Engine are configured. I want to be able to simulate those configuration changes, restart rails and test the result.
I haven't done this feat yet, but as best practice I think your engine tests should be part of the engine and should have minimal dependencies.
Some approaches I've seen and believe you should try and combine:
Mock a minimal parent rails app to test your engine.
Write multiple dummy apps to test with.
Instead of loading the entire rails application, you can split spec_helper and rails_helper in smaller parts, also gaining in setup time.
You can write custom rake tasks to switch environment before spawning a new test thread.
You can also overwrite at runtime the configuration values which reflect in your test (plus: use dependency injection!).
If your initializer is complex enough, you could extract it in a testable helper and wire it up in your test initializers.
Also, there seems to be a gem for that: Combustion.
I am building a script in on of my controllers to fill a database with an excel files data. I would build the function, then access it through a route. (That i guess i can protect with cancan) But i thought about it, and it doesn't seem very ... 'Railsy'.
I know the scripts folder exists, and it is probably for these kinds of tasks. I've tried googling stuff like 'rails execute script' and other stuff, but i can't find any good advice for what to do next.
I'm sorry if this seems kind of stupid, but in my apps i've been kind of hacking around stuff to make it work, so any advice on this task would be appreciated.
If you need to upload the file in the app and process it, it should probably go in the "lib"directory and be accessed like any other Ruby library/module/etc.
If it's something you need to run locally, "on demand", "scripts" is fine. If you need access to your rails environment when running it like any Rails models, you can run it from "rails console" or "rails runner".
As Aln said, there are a variety of ways it could be scheduled as well.
You could simply do
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
require 'rubygems'
# regular ruby code here
and have it running just like any other util. Of course you can always call any *.rb with simply
ruby somescript.rb
If you need some scheduled script, check into rufus-scheduler gem.
I am trying to run a single benchmark in the test/performance/ directory. kinda like rake test:benchmark would do, but only with a single test.
The reason for this is because the whole performance suite takes a fair amount of time to run, and I am only interested in doing tests the model that the change will effect at first.
I have tried this, but it does not setup the benchmarking environment:
ruby -Ilib:test test/performance/email_list_test.rb
Also tried rails benchmarker EmailList.all, but I believe that must be pulling from the standard unit tests.
Try this:
rake test:benchmark TEST=test/performance/email_list_test.rb
I start with a test database containing the schema but with no data in the tables. I run a test like so
cd test/
ruby unit/directive_test.rb
I get failures indicating that the code found no data in the data tables. However, I look at the tables after running that test and the data is now in the the table. In fact, if I immediately run the test again I get no failures.
So it appears that the fixture is being loaded into the table too late for one of my modules to find it.
When are the fixtures loaded? After or before the app/model/*.rb files are executed?
If it is after the models are executed is there a way to delay the loading?
This issue is also relevant when running rake test:units since that task clears the test data after it finished.
first of all see this thread and see if it can help you.
if you run the rail task rake test:units it will for sure load all fixtures before you run your code. if you are running just the test, and your unit test has no reference to the test_help.rb probably it is not loading the fixtures. You should try to run it through the rake tasks.
Another tip that i give you is that you forget the fixtures and use factories (here i recommend factory_girl). It takes sometime to get used, but it worth. Fixtures are too hard to manage, update and etc.
there is another post explaing little about the concept behind factories.
When I want to run all my unit tests, I run rake test:units. To run all my functional tests, I run rake test:functionals. If I want to run all the test cases in one file, I run
ruby test/unit/username_test.rb
A few people have been telling me I should run rake instead such as
rake test:units TEST=test/unit/username_test.rb
For running tests, they say I should always run rake. I know I should run rake if I'm testing all my unit tests. But what if it's just one file or one particular test method in a file that I'm testing? Should I still use rake? Is there any difference between the two? Do I get any benefit from running rake over ruby? Is there any disadvantage to running ruby rather than rake?
Sadly, the two are not the same. Running the tests under rake can wind up pulling things from different places than when you run the test directly (more a problem when you have multiple versions of gems, etc. on your system).
The intent is that tests run under rake should be in an environment that matches what rails would produce; I can not attest to how closely they match, but I have seen tests that passed when run directly but failed when run via rake or rails (and visa versa).
Before checking in at the very least I'd recommend running rake to hit everything, in order to be assured that nothing unexpected has broken.
Plain ruby seems ideal for fast testing of single files during iterations.
Be aware that running everything through rake can produce different results to running everything individually, as I found to my confusion recently - I was doing something slightly wrong in one test that worked successfully in isolation but that left a problem lying around for a subsequent test that only showed up when I used rake.
No I dont think so. Rake seems to be a convenient way to run all tests, all unit tests or all functional/controller tests.
For a single file, I use the ruby object_test.rb approach.. shorter and works fine for my rails home project.
They should be identical. if they are not, you're definitely doing something wrong.
As I said in my other comments, if you get tests that pass in one, but fail in the other, you're doing something very wrong; this indicates a poor test setup, and is usually caused by a different test run order between the two test approaches; one of which causes tests to fail.
Usually the cause of this is that you are not using transactions and/or tests are not cleaning up after themselves. For example, not properly requiring the fixtures they later test for, and instead relying on the pre-existing database state.
you are free to use either method. if something breaks, you're doing something wrong in your tests, and you should fix your code.
The two are not the same. Rake will do some preliminary test loading.
The intent is that tests run under rake should be in an environment that matches what rails would produce;
One difference I've noticed is with rake some of the fixture loading happens which could be by-passed with ruby.
I'd recommend using rake, unless you are using the ruby command line to one just one test in the file with the -n option.