I have a rack based gem, where the user defines routes, and they are then processed by the gem. I an trying to figure out how to test this setup. Testing methods directly impacted by the creation of routes doesn't work, because they are obviously not defined yet, because no app has been created. Is there a solution to this? I am currently using RSpec, and I would really like it if there is an RSpec solution to this.
Related
I'm trying to make a framework similar to Rails, but purely focused on GraphQL. Once nice feature of Rails is that it provides a CLI interface and a config.ru for Rack. Therefore, you can call rackup or you can call bin/rails server and the Rails app will run. I managed to mimic this functionality by putting the Rack app into a separate file (config/application.rb), which I import in config.ru and in the CLI, then instantiate and run.
However, I have an issue with Rack middleware. Since Rack middleware appears to just magically work when you run use MyMiddleware with an instantiated Rack app, I'm not really sure how I can do this in both config.ru and in my CLI. Right now it looks like I need to instantiate the app in a separate location, add the middleware, then hand it over to config.ru or the CLI. Which, I could do, but it feels like there has to be a way to attach middleware in a cleaner way. For instance, can I require config.ru in some way and then run it? Or can I attach middleware before I instantiate the app?
config.ru is just a ruby file, it's loaded by Rails as part of running each command. You can require it yourself as normal if that's what you'd like to do.
If you want to really figure out how Rails does it, the config loading is buried in this part of the Rails CLI:
https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/3cac5fe94f0f81b4263cfa03d4822c05a55eb49c/railties/lib/rails/application.rb
I am developing a sinatra based web application and I extensively use tests to make sure that everything is working before deployment. As testing frameworks I use minitest::specs and capybara with webkit.
My problem is that after deployment my application runs with a base url like this:
http://cool.server.net/to-the-application/
But during tests capybara assumes a clean base-url with a path to / not to to-the-application/. This means I can't test to find bugs which relate to forgetting to set the base-url within links and actions.
For dry testing I followed Changing the base URL for Rails 3 development and modified my config.ru, but I haven't found any way to get capybara to use a different base.
Any ideas how to solve this?
If using the rack_test driver the hostname is completely ignored so changing it isn't going to do anything. If using a different driver you can specify
Capybara.app_host = "http://cool.server.net"
Note that cool.server.net would generally need to resolve to 127.0.0.1 since thats where Capybara binds the app being tested.
Update: After thinking about this I'm not sure that is what you wanted. If what you want is for Capybara to mount your app under /to-the-application then you're going to have to create your own app object which you assign to Capybara.app - see https://github.com/teamcapybara/capybara/blob/2.13_stable/lib/capybara/rails.rb#L4 for how Capybara currently mounts the app.
I'm currently converting a whole bunch of acceptance tests from php into ruby and many of the tests use specific scenarios to test certain conditions. We use #dataProvider a lot and my google foo can't find any information if this functionality exists in the test-unit gem.
As a work around I'm manually calling a supporting method to give me the required values to test against and putting the test scenarios in var.each{} loops. It's not elegant but it works. I'd still prefer to use the dataProvider route if it's available though.
Your Google foo is probably very good, however in Ruby something similar is called a fixture.
Fixtures in Ruby Unit Tests
I'm working on a project in Ruby on Rails. We have a controller action that uses a module within a gem. This gem isn't finished yet and it isn't on the file system.
I was told to mock the module in order to test the controller. Is there a way to test this without the actual gem? Would mocking the 'require' calls work?
We are currently using Mocha for Mocking and Stubbing.
There is a way to mock the imports in python. Maybe there is a similar answer to mocking the requires in ruby.
How to mock an import
Or please let me know what would be the best way to handle this.
Update: The person who told me to mock it, suggested adding a stub file, but that would require adding test code to the controller and I don't want to do that.
Update 2: The controller uses methods declared in the Module.
If you are writing tests to mock the method calls, they would fail. For example,
controller.should_receive(:method_in_non_existent_module).with(args) #=> errors
In a correct Red->Green TDD scenario , this is alright because the next step would be to require the gem/file, include the module and add the method call in the controller and make the test pass. But you'll not be able to make the tests pass since you can't require the file because it doesn't exist yet.
May be the developer who asked you to mock the method meant to do so not in your tests, but in your actual code. For example, he's writing a gem 'dongle-jokes' which has a method that gets the most popular dongle joke from the most recent tech conference. He doesn't want the gem to be a blocker for you to finish the controller and the views so he asks you to use a dummy interface that spits out a dummy response.
Write the tests that fail
Add a file lib/dongle-jokes.rb
Add the following to that file.
module DongleJokes
def joke
"Dongle jokes aren't funny!"
end
end
Require the file and include the module, use the method in the controller.
The test should pass now. You can remove lib/dongle-jokes.rb when you start using the actual gem.
If you're working in Rails you shouldn't need to add a require to the controller anyway, as when you add the gem to your gemfile it will be required automatically on Rails startup.
What your colleague most likely meant was that you should stub the module itself. Are you using rspec for your tests? If so you should be able to use stub_const. Let's say the module is called Payments. You can then write test code like the following:
before do
stub_const("Payments", stub)
Payments.stub(process: "payments successful")
end
We have a isolated test automation team responsible for automating only watir+cucumber functional test cases. Their code base is not attached with the rails app that other developers are working on, but kept separate. We have automated several test cases so far, and now what problem we have is, some (watir/cucumber specs)test cases require some data to be preexist into db, so it(testcase) should focus only on the problem stmt, and not creating any data-require itself.
Example, say if it has to check whether rating is working for a post, it requires a post object should preexist and it just checks rating. And not creating 1st post object and then checking its rating.
What are the best approaches here? Like we have fixtures and factory-girl for rails unit testing, what is there for cucumber specs? Or Shall we make use of features only here? These testers may not have idea of all models that exist, do they be aware of them so to make use of fixtures by calling Rails-Model interface.
My idea was, when we write feature file, it should not point or talk about any Model which looks meta stuff. Watir/specs test cases should only be aware of "Web-application"/browser only as the interface to talk/deal with the application. They should not know any other interface(fixture/Models). Hence they should create their own data on their own, by making use of the single interface they know.
Again, what I want to know that, is there any ruby lib/code, given table names, column names, and values(all most like fixtures yml), along with db parameters. It will simply insert them into db, without context of rails environment. And so testers those are having their environment isolated from rails web developers would able to work on their own. Rails fixtures, or factory girls seem to be well coupled with rails. Or am I incorrect?
Like Chirantan said you could use Factory girl with cucumber.
As require your factories in test unit or RSpec, you can do the same in the cucumber's env.rb file or any custom config file.
http://robots.thoughtbot.com/post/284805810/gimme-three-steps
http://www.claytonlz.com/2010/03/zero-to-tested-with-cucumber-and-factory-girl/
http://www.andhapp.com/blog/2009/11/07/using-factory_girl-with-cucumber/
When using cucumber, the Given statement sets the test situation up:
Given I have a basic user with a password
and the When statement triggers the test:
When the user logs in
and the Then statement checks the test results
Then they see the basic menu
The data gets loaded in the Given statement.