I have many lines in my specs that result in this IntelliJ warning:
"Cannot resolve properly, was not processed"
The vast majority of the lines have this format:
expect(result[:err]).to include('(Check the file permissions.)')
If I move the literal string to a separate variable, the warning goes away:
msg = '(Check the file permissions.)'
expect(result[:err]).to include(msg)
Is there a way to make this error go away (other than moving all my string literals to variables)?
My guess is that the RubyMine parser thinks that include is the Ruby keyword to include a module and so it emits a warning telling it cannot find the corresponding module.
The only way I found to fix this warning is to use the inclusion alias proposed by the rspec include matcher :
expect(result[:err]).to inclusion('(Check the file permissions.)')
This fixes the warning and the expectation works the same, but sadly the english sentence is bad.
There is also 3 other aliases available, but they don't give better english syntax:
alias_matcher :a_collection_including, :include
alias_matcher :a_string_including, :include
alias_matcher :a_hash_including, :include
alias_matcher :including, :include
These alias definitions can be found here
Maybe by chance this answer could lead someone to a better solution.
If you're willing to switch from using the word include to something like contain, you could simply create a custom matcher:
RSpec::Matchers.define :contain do |expected|
match do |actual|
expect(actual).to include(expected)
end
end
You could either add that code directly in your rails_helper.rb file, or better yet in a separate file. For instance, create spec/support/custom_matchers.rb and place the code there. You'll need to make sure that file gets included when running rspec. To do that, you could uncomment the following line which appears in the default spec/rails_helper.rb file:
# Dir[Rails.root.join('spec', 'support', '**', '*.rb')].each { |f| require f }
With that in place, your spec file would read:
expect(result[:err]).to contain('(Check the file permissions.)')
It can be fixed by adding this to rails_helper.rb or support/rubymine_stubs.rb:
# Rubymine IDE underlines `include` matchers with warning "Cannot resolve properly, was not processed"
# To fix this issue let's make an alias `contain` and use it instead
RSpec::Matchers.alias_matcher :contain, :include
module RubymineStubs
# create stub for `contain` so Rubymine won't underline it
def contain(*_args) end
end
Related
Coming to Ruby from a PHP background, I'm used to being able to use require, require_once, include, or include_once which all have a similar effect, but the key being they continue to process code in the same scope where the include / require command was invoked.
Example:
sub.php
<?php
echo $foo;
main.php
<?php
$foo = 1234;
include('sub.php'); // outputs '1234'
When I first started using Ruby I tried to include / require / require_relative / load other .rb files, and after becoming a little frustrated with not having it work how I would expect it to I decided that there were better ways to go about breaking up large files and that Ruby didn't need to behave in the same way PHP did.
However, occasionally I feel that for testing purposes it would be nice to to load code from another .rb file in the way PHP does - in the same scope with access to all the same variables - without having to use class / instance variables or constants. Is this possible? Maybe somehow using a proc / binding / or eval command?
Again, I'm not advocating that this should be used during development - but I am curious if it is possible - and if so, how?
Yes, this is possible, although certainly not something I'd recommend doing. This works:
includer.rb:
puts var
include.rb:
var = "Hello!"
eval(File.read("include.rb"), binding)
Running this (Ruby 2.2.1, Ruby 1.9.3) will print Hello!. It works simply: eval takes an optional binding with which to evaluate the code it is passed, and Kernel#binding returns the current binding.
To have code run in same binding, you could simply eval the file contents as follows:
example.rb
class Example
def self.called_by_include
"value for bar"
end
def foo
puts "Called foo"
end
eval( File.read( 'included.rb' ) )
end
Example.new.bar
included.rb
BAR_CONSTANT = called_by_include
def bar
puts BAR_CONSTANT
end
Running ruby example.rb produces output
value for bar
The important thing is the eval( File.read( 'included.rb' ) ) code, which if you really wanted you could define as a class method on Object, to allow arbitrary source to be included with a convenience function*. The use of constants, class variables etc just shows influences working in both directions between the two pieces of source code.
It would be bad practice to use this in any production code. Ruby gives you much better tools for meta-programming, such as ability to use mix-ins, re-open classes, define methods from blocks etc.
* Something like this
class Object
def self.include_source filename
eval( File.read( filename ) )
end
end
And the line in example.rb would become just
include_source 'included.rb'
Again I have to repeat this is not such a great idea . . .
To import external .rb file in your code, I'm not sure but I think it have to be a gem.
Use require followed by the name of the gem you want to import.
Example
require 'foobar'
# do some stuff
Or you can use load to import entire rb file
load 'foobar.rb'
# do some stuff
Good luck and sorry for my english
Yes, I know I can just use load instead of require. But that is not a good solution for my use case:
When the app boots, it requires a config file. Each environment has its own config. The config sets constants.
When the app boots, only one environment is required. However, during testing, it loads config files multiple times to make sure there are no syntax errors.
In the testing environment, the same config file may be loaded more than once. But I don't want to change the require to load because every time the a spec runs, it reloads the config. This should be done via require, because if the config has already been loaded, it raises already initialized constant warnings.
The cleanest solution I can see is to manually reset the require flag for the config file after any config spec.
Is there a way to do that in Ruby?
Edit: adding code.
When the app boots it calls the init file:
init.rb:
require "./config/environments/#{ ENV[ 'RACK_ENV' ]}.rb"
config/environments/test.rb:
APP_SETTING = :foo
config/environments/production.rb:
APP_SETTING = :bar
spec/models/config.rb: # It's not a model spec...
describe 'Config' do
specify do
load './config/environments/test.rb'
end
specify do
load './config/environments/production.rb'
end
Yes it can be done. You must know the path to the files that you want to reload. There is a special variable $LOADED_FEATURES which stores what has been loaded, and is used by require to decide whether to load a file when it is requested again.
Here I am assuming that the files you want to re-require all have the unique path /myapp/config/ in their name. But hopefully you can see that this would work for any rule about the path name you can code.
$LOADED_FEATURES.reject! { |path| path =~ /\/myapp\/config\// }
And that's it . . .
Some caveats:
require does not store or follow any kind of dependency tree, to know what it "should" have loaded. So you need to ensure the full chain of requires starting with the require command you run in the spec to re-load the config, and including everything you need to be loaded, is covered by the removed paths.
This will not unload class definitions or constants, but simply re-load the files. In fact that is literally what require does, it just calls load internally. So all the warning messages about re-defining constants will also need to be handled by un-defining the constants you expect to see defined in the files.
There is probably a design of your config and specs that avoids the need to do this.
if you really want to do this, here's one approach that doesn't leak into your test process. Fork a process for every config file you want to test, communicate the status back to the test process via IO.pipe and fail/succeed the test based on the result.
You can go as crazy as you want with the stuff you send down the pipe...
Here's some quick and dirty example to show you what I mean.
a config
# foo.rb
FOO = "from foo"
another config
# bar.rb
FOO = "from bar"
some faulty config
# witherror.rb
asdf
and your "test"
# yourtest.rb
def load_config(writer, config_file)
fork do
begin
require_relative config_file
writer.write "success: #{FOO}\n"
rescue
writer.write "fail: #{$!.message}\n"
end
writer.close
exit # maybe this is even enough to NOT make it run your other tests...
end
end
rd, writer = IO.pipe
load_config(writer, "foo.rb")
load_config(writer, "bar.rb")
load_config(writer, "witherror.rb")
writer.close
puts rd.read
puts rd.read
puts rd.read
puts FOO
The output is:
success: from foo
success: from bar
fail: undefined local variable or method `asdf' for main:Object
yourtest.rb:24:in `<main>': uninitialized constant FOO (NameError)
as you can see, the FOO constant doesn't leak into your test process etc.
Of course you're only through half way because there's more to it like, making sure only one process runs the test etc.
Frankly, I don't think this is a good idea, no matter what approach you chose because you'll open a can of worms and imho there's no really clean way to do this.
I have to maintain a Ruby script, which requires some libs I don't have locally and which won't work in my environment. Nevertheless I want to spec some methods in this script so that I can change them easily.
Is there an option to stub some of the require statements in the script I want to test so that it can be loaded by rspec and the spec can be executed within my environment?
Example (old_script.rb):
require "incompatible_lib"
class Script
def some_other_stuff
...
end
def add(a,b)
a+b
end
end
How can I write a test to check the add function without splitting the "old_Script.rb" file and without providing the incompatible_lib I don't have?
Instead of stubbing require which is "inherited" from Kernel, you could do this:
Create a dummy incompatible_lib.rb file somewhere that is not in your $LOAD_PATH. I.e., if this is a Ruby application (not Rails), don't put it in lib/ nor spec/.
You can do this a number of ways, but I'll tell you one method: in your spec file which tests Script, modify $LOAD_PATH to include the parent directory of your dummy incompatible_lib.rb.
Ordering is very important -- next you will include script.rb (the file which defines Script).
This will get you around the issue and allow you test test the add method.
Once you've successfully tested Script, I would highly recommend refactoring it so that you don't have to do this technique, which is a hack, IMHO.
Thanks, I also thought about the option of adding the files, but finally hacked the require itself within the test case:
module Kernel
alias :old_require :require
def require(path)
old_require(path) unless LIBS_TO_SKIP.include?(path)
end
end
I know that this is an ugly hack but as this is legacy code executed on a modified ruby compiler I can't easily get these libs running and it's sufficient to let me test my modifications...
I use the following tests in a nanoc rule for compiling various kinds of content (including partials) in multiple directories by matching them with their identically-named layouts.
Now I've added index files to each content dir, but these need the default layout. This obviously works fine if I add an item named 'index:' to the metadata in the 'index.md' files…
---
title: 'This page title'
index: 'y'
---
…but checking for if #item[:index] seems a bit clunky, so I've been trying (well, hacking around) to find a way to omit 'index:' from the metadata and test by nanoc rep name or identifier - see the commented-out if statements in the code below:
layouts = ['layoutone','layouttwo','layoutetc']
layouts.each do |dir|
compile "/#{dir}/*" do
# if item.identifier == "/#{dir}/index/"
# if item.identifier =~ %r{/\w/index/}
# if #item.rep_named(:index)
if #item[:index]
filter :kramdown
layout "default"
elsif #item[:inc]
filter :erb
filter :kramdown
layout "#{dir}"
else
filter :kramdown
layout "#{dir}"
end
end
end
What's wrong with the syntax/logic in my commented-out lines?
Edit:
I was missing the blindingly obvious here: simply add /content/dir_name.md at the same level as /content/dir_name/* to create /dir_name/index.html and /dir_name/*.html, and apply rules to those /content/dir_name.md files.
Did you change nanoc.yaml after nanoc create-site? Because I recall that by default, identifiers in nanoc don't contain the last index part of source file name.
Say, file content/dirA/index.markdown will have identifier /dirA/ or something, and compile to content/dirA/index.html. This may be the reason why your index regex didn't hit.
Yes, a little tricky, but nanoc is great.
update
I found a way to tell the content filename: item.raw_filename.
This document says it is only for binary files, while it also work on text files in my experiment.
# in compile block of Rules
item.identifier
# => "/aaa/"
item.raw_filename
# => "content/aaa.markdown"
I have taken this example exactly from the Ruby Cookbook. Unfortunately for me, like a whole lot of the examples in that book, this one does not work:
my file (Find.rb - saved both locally and to Ruby\bin):
require 'find'
module Find
def match(*paths)
matched=[]
find(*paths) { |path| matched << path if yield path }
return matched
end
module_function :match
end
I try to call it this way from IRB, according to the example the book provides:
irb(main):002:0> require 'Find'
=> false
irb(main):003:0> Find.match("./") { |p| ext = p[-4...p.size]; ext && ext.downcase == "mp3" }
It SHOULD return a list of mp3 files in my recursive directory. Instead, it does this:
NoMethodError: undefined method `match' for Find:Module
from (irb):3
from C:/Ruby192/bin/irb:12:in `<main>'
What gives? I'm new at this (although I MUST say that I'm farther along with Python, and much better at it!).
How can I get IRB to use my method?
I ran into this with irb on a Mac running Snow Leopard while using the default version of ruby (and irb of course) installed with OS X. I was able to get past it by including the module in IRB after loading the module or in the file after the module definition.
include module_name
I'm not sure if this is a defect or known behavior.
The only explanation is that the code you posted is not the code you are running, since both carefully reading it and simply cut&paste&running it shows absolutely no problems whatsoever.
What directory are you calling IRB from? Try calling it from the directory where your find.rb file is located. Also, I don't know if it makes any difference but convention is to name the file the lowercase version of the module / class. So the module would be Find and the file name would be find.rb. You shouldn't need the require call in the file itself.
So, start your command prompt window, cd into the directory that contains find.rb and run irb. In IRB you should be able to require "find" and it should return true. From there you should be able to call Find.match.
I know this question is already 3 years old, but since this is the first hit on google for the problem, and I had been banging my head against the wall all afternoon with the same problem doing the tutorial here: http://ruby.learncodethehardway.org/book/ex25.html, here goes: the function definition in the module should read
module Find
def Find.match(*paths)
...
end
end