Please considering following code:
class MyModel
validate my_validation unless ENV["RAILS_ENV"] == "test"
end
We have a validation that is going to have major effect on HUGE parts of the test-suite. I only want it to be executed in prod, not when running the test suite*... EXCEPT for the actual tests regarding this validation.
So when testing the validation I need to set the ENV["RAILS_ENV"] to something else then test. I tried this in my my_model_spec.rb-file:
it "tests the validation" do
ENV["RAILS_ENV"] = "development"
# Tests the validation..
ENV["RAILS_ENV"] = "test"
end
This sets the variable while in the spec file, BUT where the check is made in my_model.rb the ENV["RAILS_ENV"] still returns "test".
Is there a way to achieve the declaration of ENV["RAILS_ENV"] in the SPEC-file and have that still set when the model code is executed during the example run?
Yes yes, please believe me we have this under control (... I think :D). It is during a maintenance window.
Obligatory:
validate my_validation unless ENV["RAILS_ENV"] == "test"
In 99.9% of cases, this is really not a good idea.
Just felt I needed to make that clear, in case future readers see this post and get funny ideas... (It would be much better to update the test suite to remain valid, e.g. by changing the factories.)
Is there a way to achieve the declaration of ENV["RAILS_ENV"] in the SPEC-file
Yes - you can stub the value:
allow(ENV).to receive(:[]).with('RAILS_ENV').and_return('development')
There are also some other approaches you could consider.
For example, why not call the method directly, for the purpose of running this test?
record = MyModel.new # or using FactoryBot.build / whatever
record.my_validation
Or, you could add a model attribute to forcibly-run the validation:
class MyModel
attr_accessor :run_my_validation
validate my_validation if ENV["RAILS_ENV"] != "test" || run_my_validation
end
# and in the test:
record = MyModel.new # or using FactoryBot.build / whatever
record.run_my_validation = true
expect(record.valid?).to be_true
Yet another approach you could consider, to eliminate rails environment check from the production code, would be to set an environment-specific configuration value. Which, again, you could stub in the spec:
class MyModel
validate my_validation if Rails.configuration.run_my_model_validation
end
# and in the test:
allow(Rails.configuration).to receive(:run_my_model_validation).and_return(true)
Another benefit to the above is that you could enable the validation in development mode, without making any code change to the application.
Related
I'm working on some unit tests. One of them use a specific configuration variable as set in my application MyBigApp::Env which looks like:
{:country=>'uk', :another_hosts=>["192.168.99.105"]}
So I access it with MyBigApp::Env.country
However in my unit test I want that country for the test become something.
Using rspec I've seen stub but can't get it to work - any ideas where I'm going wrong:
MyBigApp::Env.stub(:[]).with('country').and_return('gr')
Also tried this (as above shows deprecated):
allow(MyBigApp::Env).to receive('country').and_return('gr')
Infact as a test, I also tried:
my_hash = {:uri=>nil}
allow(my_hash).to receive(:[]).with(:uri).and_return('Over written!')
p my_hash
and that didnt update either - it just returned {:uri=>nil}
As a workaround, at the moment I'm having to save the env var in a temp var in the before(each) block then return it back to the original in the after(each). This feels really risky to me. I'm thinking imagine the service running and someone runs unit tests it could effect the end user in that small instance the test is running.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks
Yes it possible, but keep in mind that stub only works when you trigger/call the method that you stubbed/mocked
my_hash = {:uri=>nil}
allow(my_hash).to receive(:[]).with(:uri).and_return('Over written!')
p my_hash[:url] # it will be 'Over written!'
This works for me:
my_hash = {:uri=>nil}
allow(my_hash).to receive(:[]).with(:uri).and_return('Over written!')
expect(my_hash[:uri]).to eq "Over written!"
In your sample test case, you are just calling p my_hash which doesn't actually call the [] method.
In terms of why this isn't working with MyBigApp::Env, well, that really depends on what class it is. Possible whatever method .country is doesn't actually call [].
Really, if you call MyBigApp::Env['country'] and stub MyBigApp::Env to receive [] with 'country', it should work.
In regards to your concern about changing your running application's behavior from the tests ... what kind of tests are these?! Running unit tests against a live production application would be very odd. How do you imagine it would change your production app's code? The Env hash just lives in memory right?
Anyway, you should never have to worry about your tests changing the experience for an 'end user'. Always run tests on a completely quarantined envionment, meaning don't use the same database. Actually, the test database is usually wiped after each test.
Just wanted to suggest a non-stubbing alternative. For example:
def code_under_test
key = 'country'
# ... maybe lots of code
value = MyBigApp::Env[key] # deep inside some classes
# ... lots more code
"This is the #{value}"
end
MyBigApp::Env is hard-coded deep in the code, and the need for stubbing reveals that dependency, and the benefits of OOP encapsulation are lost.
It'd be much easier if this were the case:
def code_under_test(config_vars = MyBigApp::Env)
"This is the #{config_vars['country']}"
end
it 'should return my country value' do
value = previous_code_under_test('country' => 'TEST VALUE')
expect(value).to eq("This is the TEST VALUE")
end
No stubbing required, just plain old method calls.
I've searched for an answer to this but I just can't seem to figure out what's going wrong. I have an api client test that looks like the following:
module MyTests
describe '#update' do
# using a before(:all) block for setup
before(:all) do
#client1 = Client.new
#initial_payload_state = #client1.update.payload
end
context 'with a known starting payload' do
# The payload is some nasty nested json so I grab an existing one
# and then use a helper method to convert it to a full payload.
# Then I update the client with the new payload. I'm using before(:each)
# so I can get the client into this state for every test.
before(:each) do
#full_payload_state = helper_method(#initial_payload_state)
end
context 'alter_payload_1 works' do
# now that I have the payload in its full state I'd like to alter it to
# produce a certain output
before(:all) do
#new_payload_state = alter_payload_1(#full_payload_state)
end
# I now want to update the client with the altered payload and make sure
# it has the same data. The request and response bodies are formatted slightly
# differently in this case.
it 'works' do
#updated_payload_state = #client1.update(#new_payload_state)
expect(payloads_equal?(#full_payload_state, #new_payload_state).to eq true
end
end
context 'alter_payload_2 works' do
before(:all) do
#new_payload_state = alter_payload_2(#full_payload_state)
end
it 'works' do
#updated_payload_state = #client1.update(#new_payload_state)
expect(payloads_equal?(#full_payload_state, #new_payload_state).to eq true
end
end
In reality, my before block for setup is much longer, so I think it makes sense to keep it that way. I tried to use a before(:each) block so I could have the same known state to start each of the alter_payload contexts. The problem is that with this setup, I get a no method error for this line:
#new_payload_state = alter_payload_1(#full_payload_state)
suggesting that #full_payload_state is nil. I'm certain I've got something wrong with respect to scope, but I'm not sure why or how to fix it. Any help greatly appreciated!
Looks like a scope issue with before(:all).
In general, it's wise to stop using before(:all) because it entangles your tests.
Replace your before(:all) lines with before(:each), and this will make each of your tests independent of the others. This will likely help you find your glitch.
Sorry if this is plain simple. i am new to ruby as well as rspec and it seems rspec is a very 'obscure' world (esp when coming from a .net background).
In my 'spec', i have:
before(:each) do
expect(File).to receive(:exist?).with("dummy.yaml").and_return (true)
end
This works fine for all my 'examples', except one where i want it to return false.
expect(File).to receive(:exist?).with("non_existent.yaml").and_return (false)
This obviously fails my test because although "non_existent.yaml" expectation was met, the "dummy.yaml" was not:
(<File (class)>).exist?("dummy.yaml")
expected: 1 time with arguments: ("dummy.yaml")
received: 0 times
So how can i do a 'Reset' on 'File.exist?' (a class method mock) before i setup the new expectation for it? (... "non_existent.yaml"..)
i googled and it yielded:
RSpec::Mocks.proxy_for(your_object).reset
but this gives me:
NoMethodError:
undefined method `proxy_for' for RSpec::Mocks:Module
I could not find anywhere in the documentation that this is how you should do it, and past behaviors goes to show that this solution might also change in the future, but apparently this is how you can currently do it:
RSpec::Mocks.space.proxy_for(your_object).reset
I would follow #BroiSatse's remark, though, and think about re-designing the tests, aiming to move the expectation from the before block. The before block is meant for setup, as you say, and the setup is a very weird place to put expectations.
I'm not sure how you came to this design, but I can suggest two possible alternatives:
If the test is trivial, and will work anyway, you should create one test with this explicit expectation, while stubbing it for the other tests:
before(:each) do
allow(File).to receive(:exist?).with("dummy.yaml").and_return (true)
end
it "asks if file exists" do
expect(File).to receive(:exist?).with("dummy.yaml").and_return (true)
# do the test...
end
If the expectation should run for every test, since what changes in each scenario is the context, you should consider using shared examples:
shared_examples "looking for dummy.yaml" do
it "asks if file exists" do
expect(File).to receive(:exist?).with("dummy.yaml").and_return (true)
# do the test...
end
end
it_behaves_like "looking for dummy.yaml" do
let(:scenario) { "something which sets the context"}
end
You might also want to ask myron if there is a more recommended/documented solution to reset mocked objects...
This worked for me to unmock a specific method from a class:
mock = RSpec::Mocks.space.proxy_for(MyClass)
mock.instance_variable_get(:#method_doubles)[:my_method].reset
Note: Same logic of
RSpec::Mocks.space.proxy_for(MyClass).reset which resets all methods
Expanding on #Uri Agassi's answer and as I answered on another similar question, I found that I could use RSpec::Mocks.space.registered? to check if a method was a mock, and RSpec::Mocks.space.proxy_for(my_mocked_var).reset to reset it's value.
Here is the example I included in my other answer:
Example: Resetting a mocked value
For example, if we wanted to reset this mock back to it's unmocked
default value, we can use the RSpec::Mocks.space.proxy_for helper to
find our mock, then reset it:
# when
# Rails.configuration.action_controller.allow_forgery_protection == false
# and
# allow(Rails.configuration.action_controller).to receive(:allow_forgery_protection).and_return(true)
RSpec::Mocks.space.registered?(Rails.configuration.action_controller)
# => true
Rails.configuration.action_controller.allow_forgery_protection
# => true
RSpec::Mocks.space.proxy_for(Rails.configuration.action_controller).reset
Rails.configuration.action_controller.allow_forgery_protection
# => false
Notice however that the even though the mock value has been reset, the
mock remains registered?:
RSpec::Mocks.space.registered?(Rails.configuration.action_controller)
# => true
When using "expect_any_instance" I had success using the following method to change the mock (e.g. our example: Putting out a Twitter post and returning a different tweet id)
expect_any_instance_of(Twitter::REST::Client).to receive(:update).and_return(Hashie::Mash.new(id: "12"))
# post tweet
RSpec::Mocks.space.verify_all
RSpec::Mocks.space.reset_all
expect_any_instance_of(Twitter::REST::Client).to receive(:update).and_return(Hashie::Mash.new(id: "12346"))
# post another tweet
I need to alter env variables eg URLS, depending on the environment (alpha, beta, and public/ops) in which the tests are to be run. Are "contexts" within RSpec that allow for this?
I am not sure if I understand the problem you try to solve. Normally RSpec runs in only in the test environment, not in multople environments.
Your test environment is defined in config/environments/test.rb. In than file you define everything that is valid for all kind of tests. For example you will never ever want to send emails from your test suite. Therefore you will find something like this in that file:
config.action_mailer.delivery_method = :test
If there is something that you want to change in your specs (if DelayedJobs should be available or not in the following example), then there are multiple ways to do so. The one I see most is to stub objects to return the values you need for a certain test:
describe 'a complex operation' do
context 'with DelayedJobs' do
# acts like DelayedJobs are configured to run in background
before { Delayed::Worker.stub(:delay_jobs => true) }
it 'creates a DelayedJob' do
...
end
end
context 'without DelayedJobs' do
# acts like DelayedJobs are configured to run immediately
before { Delayed::Worker.stub(:delay_jobs => false) }
it 'calls the complex query' do
...
end
end
end
I'll be brief with the code samples, as all of my tests pass except the one below. I got it to pass by changing things up a bit, but I'm not sure why version 1 fails and version 2 works.
My model:
# app/models/person.rb
class Person
validates :contact_number, uniqueness: true
end
Model spec
# spec/models/person_spec.rb
require 'spec_helper'
describe Person do
it 'is a valid factory' do
create(:person).should be_valid # passes
end
it 'has a unique phone number' do
create(:person)
build(:person).should_not be_valid # fails
end
it 'also has a unique phone number' do
person1 = create(:person)
person2 = person1.dup
person2.should_not be_valid # passes
end
end
As far as I can tell, the two uniqueness tests should be doing the same thing, however one passes and one fails.
If it matters, I am using mongoid, though I don't think that should have any effect. I'm also not doing anything with nested contexts or describes in my test, so I think the scope is correct. Any insight is appreciated.
UPDATE 1: I realized in my factory I am adding an initialize_with block like this:
initialize_with { Person.find_or_create_by(contact_number: contact_number) }
I realized that this may be the reason the validation was failing -- I was just getting the same person back. However, commenting out that line gives the following error:
Mongoid::Errors::Validations:
Problem:
Validation of Person failed.
Summary:
The following errors were found: Contact number is already taken
Resolution:
Try persisting the document with valid data or remove the validations.
Which, in theory is good, I suppose, since it won't let me save a second person with the same contact number, but I'd prefer my test to pass.
Probably your person factory has a sequence in contact_number making a diferent contact_number in each person.
Just realize that the build(:person) doesnt validate. The validation occurs only in create.
I strongly suggest use of shoulda-matchers for this kind of validations.
It is possible that your database is being cleaned (do you have database-cleaner in your Gemfile), or your tests are not being run in the order you think they are. (Check for :random in your spec_helper.rb)
While the above answer regarding using shoulda-matchers will help you run this particular test in RSpec more concisely, you probably want to have your unique phone number test be able to be run completely on its own without relying on another spec having executed. Your second test is an example of Obscure Test (and also a little bit of Mystery Guest http://robots.thoughtbot.com/mystery-guest), where it's not clear from the test code what is actually being tested. Your phone number parameter is defined in another file (the factory), and the prior data setup is being run in another spec somewhere else in the file.
Your second test is already better because it is more explicitly showing what you're testing, and doesn't rely on another spec having been run. I would actually write it like this to make it more explicit:
it 'has a unique phone number' do
person1 = create(:person, phone_number: '555-123-4567')
person2 = create(:person, phone_number: '555-123-4567')
# can use 'should' here instead
expect(person2).not_to be_valid
end
If you don't explicitly make it about the phone number, then if you change your factory this test might start failing even though your code is still sound. In addition, if you have other attributes for which you are validating uniqueness, your previous test might pass even though the phone number validation is missing.
I figured it out! On a whim, I checked out the test database and noticed that a Person object was lingering around. So, it actually wasn't the
build(:person).should_not be_valid that was raising the Mongoid exception. It was the create call on the line before. Clearing out the DB and running the spec again passed, but again the data was persisting. I double checked my spec_helper.rb file and noticed I wasn't calling start on the DatabaseCleaner. My updated spec_helper.rb file looks like this, and now everything works:
# Clean up the database
require 'database_cleaner'
config.mock_with :rspec
config.before(:suite) do
DatabaseCleaner.strategy = :truncation
DatabaseCleaner.orm = "mongoid"
end
config.before(:each) do
DatabaseCleaner.start
end
config.after(:each) do
DatabaseCleaner.clean
end