We want to export our ELB configurations for re-use. I can get the ELB configs with:
all_elbs = Fog::AWS::ELB.load_balancers.all()
But this returns a failure:
all_policies = Fog::AWS::ELB.policies.all()
#=> /Library/Ruby/Gems/2.0.0/gems/fog-aws-0.0.6/lib/fog/aws/models/elb/policies.rb:20:
#=> in `munged_data': undefined method `reduce' for nil:NilClass (NoMethodError)
Ultimately, I want to be able to recreate a ELB based on an existing ELB.
That error message means that on line 20 of policies.rb there is code like foo.reduce and foo happens to be nil.
If we look at the source code of the gem, we see:
def munged_data
data.reduce([]){ |m,e| # line 20
So, the problem is that data is nil when the munged_data method is called. We see on line 8 of the same file that data is defined via a simple attr_accessor call. I cannot tell for sure where that should have been set. (There are 227 instances of #data = or data = in the gem.) This seems like a bug in the AWS gem, unless you were supposed to call some method before calling .all on policies.
Tracing further, we see that policies is defined in load_balancer.rb on line 154 as:
def policies
Fog::AWS::ELB::Policies.new({
:data => policy_descriptions,
:service => service,
:load_balancer => self
})
end
Assuming that the data passed to the method is used directly as the #data instance variable, then the problem is that policy_descriptions returned nil.
The implementation of policy_descriptions is:
def policy_descriptions
requires :id
#policy_descriptions ||= service.describe_load_balancer_policies(id).body["DescribeLoadBalancerPoliciesResult"]["PolicyDescriptions"]
end
If service.describe_load_balancer_policies(id).body["DescribeLoadBalancerPoliciesResult"] returned nil (or any object that did not have a [] method) this method would have thrown an error. So, my deduction is that this returned something like a hash, but that hash has no "PolicyDescriptions" key.
From there...I don't know.
Related
Almost all of you used URI module to convert a url string to an object in order to make some validation or change.
Example:
require 'uri'
URI('https://google.com')
# => #<URI::HTTPS https://google.com>
As you can see, the result is the HTTPS object under the URI module.
So, there is a question what is run when you write module/class name with round braces like the line of code above.
I thought, it is implicit calling of call method, but I got NoMethodError.
Example:
class MyClass
def self.call
puts 'You were right!'
end
end
MyClass()
# => NoMethodError: undefined method `MyClass' for main:Object
Funny enough, with the code you've shown, MyClass.() works (which is an alias for .call).
However in the case of URI, this actually a method (methods can begin with capitals). You can see the source code here: https://apidock.com/ruby/Kernel/URI/instance
I am working with automated test. This is the first time I'm working with mongoDB.
So, I am trying to create a generic method to find a document in a desired collection that will be passed as parameter. I've found some examples and all of them use the .collection method. It doesn't seem to work in my project.
Here's my DB client code:
require 'mongo'
require 'singleton'
class DBClient
include Singleton
def initialize
#db_connection = Mongo::Client.new($env['database']['feature']['url'])
end
def find(collection, value)
coll = #db_connection.collection(collection)
coll.find(owner: 'value')
end
end
And here's how I instance my method
DBClient.instance.find('collectionTest', 'Jhon')
When I run my test I get the following message:
undefined method `collection' for #<Mongo::Client: cluster=localhost:>
Did you mean? collections (NoMethodError)
The gem I'm using is mongo (2.6.1).
What I am doing wrong?
Based on documentation, there is indeed no method collection in Mongo::Client. What you are looking for is the [] method. The code will then look like this:
require 'mongo'
require 'singleton'
class DBClient
include Singleton
def initialize
#db_connection = Mongo::Client.new($env['database']['feature']['url'])
end
def find(collection, value)
coll = #db_connection[collection]
coll.find(owner: value)
end
end
EDIT: I've also changed the line with the find itself. In your original code, it would find documents where owner is 'value' string. I presume you want the documents where owner matches the value send to the function.
The Background:
I'm trying to use cucumber to do some test-driven (or behavior-driven) development around an interface to AWS, in ruby.
So, I have a step definition that looks like this:
Then(/^the mock object should have had :(.*?) called, setting "(.*?)" to "(.*?)"$/) do |method, param, value|
expect(#mock).to receive(method.to_sym).with(hash_including(param, value))
end
Where #mock was previously set using:
#mock = instance_double(AWS::AutoScaling::Client)
And where I invoke this step definition with a feature line like:
And the mock object should have had :update_auto_scaling_group called, setting "auto_scaling_group_name" to "Some-test-value"
When that step gets run, it gets the following error (leaving out the full error, as I believe this is the most relevant part):
AWS::AutoScaling::Client does not implement: update_auto_scaling_group (RSpec::Mocks::MockExpectationError)
I see that indeed, the checks that RSpec runs (as traced back from where the RSpec::Mocks::MockExpectationError gets thrown) are at least correctly reporting the information that they get from the class:
[1] pry(main)> require 'aws-sdk'
=> true
[2] pry(main)> klass = AWS::AutoScaling::Client
=> AWS::AutoScaling::Client
[3] pry(main)> klass.public_method_defined? "update_auto_scaling_group"
=> false
[4] pry(main)> klass.private_method_defined? "update_auto_scaling_group"
=> false
[5] pry(main)> klass.protected_method_defined? "update_auto_scaling_group"
=> false
And yet, if we ask an actual instance, it lets us know that this is a method it would respond to:
[6] pry(main)> x = klass.new
=> #<AWS::AutoScaling::Client::V20110101>
[7] pry(main)> x.respond_to? "update_auto_scaling_group"
=> true
Even while it doesn't say that about just anything:
[8] pry(main)> x.respond_to? "bogus"
=> false
First questions:
So... is this a bug in the AWS::AutoScaling::Client code (or really, probably here), for not defining the methods in a way that the extant checks ({public,private,protected}_method_defined?) would come back true?
Or perhaps a bug in RSpec's "doubles", for not doing all the checking it could do to try to find out that this is indeed a method that's callable in an instance of that class?
Or perhaps it's simply something that I'm doing wrong here? Other?
More generally:
How can I write tests for the code I'm writing, to ensure that it's making calls to what will be an AWS::AutoScaling::Client instance, with the correct parameters (as defined in several checks that I have)? Are there alternate ways I can write my step definitions that would make this work? Alternative ways to create my mock objects? Other?
I've found a way to dynamically mix in the methods I needed to mock
You could do this with empty methods and then stub them, or just include the stubs in the mixin
require 'rails_helper'
RSpec.describe "users/sessions/new.html.erb", :type => :view do
it "displays login form" do
module DeviseUserBits
def resource
#_DeviseUserBitsUser ||= User.new
end
def resource_name
:user
end
def devise_mapping
Devise.mappings[:user]
end
end
view.class.include DeviseUserBits
render
expect(rendered).to match /form/
end
end
It just adds methods on/after instantiating. It's pretty legal, all ruby classes/objects are open.
Proper answer - you do not want to test what you are trying to test in duck-typed language with open classes and objects. It just does not make sense.
The version 1 AWS SDK for Ruby uses #method_missing as a delegate for building and sending requests. The methods a client responds to are defined in an API definition. This eliminates boiler-plate code, but causes problems if you are trying to reflect the available methods at runtime.
Option A: Use a regular double and apply your assertions on the test double.
Option B: Use the mocking feature of the SDK via AWS.stub! When stubbing is enabled, all clients constructed will respond to their regular methods, but will return dummy responses (empty hashes and arrays). This approach provides the useful ability to specify the data to return from a stub. You can even create a stub response for the express purpose of returning from an assertion.
Going with Option B:
# use `:stub_requests` or call Aws.stub!
as = AWS::AutoScaling::Client.new(:stub_requests: true)
# validates parameters as normal, but returns empty response data
as.update_auto_scaling_group(auto_scaling_group_name: 'name')
#=> {}
# You can access the stub response for any operation by name:
stub = as.stub_for(:describe_auto_scaling_groups)
stub.data[:auto_scaling_group_names] = ["Group1", "Group2"]
# Now calling that operation will return the stubbed data
resp = as.describe_auto_scaling_groups
resp.auto_scaling_group_names
#=> ['Group1', 'Group2']
If you need to assert a method is called against the client, you can do so normally, returning the stubbed response:
expect(#client).to receive(:describe_auto_scaling_groups).
with(hash_including(param, value)).
and_return(#client.stub_for(:describe_auto_scaling_groups))
I'd like to have instance methods of a class return self, and be init with another class instance self.
However I'm struggling to see how to spec this succintly:
::Api.should_receive(:new).once do |arg|
arg.should be_an_instance_of(::Cli)
end
When running this spec, this ensures that the next method is called on true instead of the Api instance, as expected, that is the return value of the block. Example:
class Cli
def eg
api = Api.new(self)
api.blowup # undefined method for true
end
end
I'd really like the block to return the Api instance self without invoking another call to Api.new(...) in the spec, the example below does this and to my mind a non-rspec reader would wonder why the spec passes when clearly Api.new(...) has been called more than once.
Can anyone suggest how best to do this?
Current solution:
This reads like ::Api.new(...) is called thrice: once to create api, once to create cli, once to create start. Yet the spec of one call passes. I understand why and that this is correct, so not a bug. However I'd like a spec that a reader not familiar with rspec could scan and not have the impression that Api.new has been called more than once. Also note that ...once.and_return(api){...} does not work, the block needs to return api in order to pass.
let(:cli){ ::Cli.start(['install']) }
let(:start){ ::Cli.start(['install']) }
it 'is the API' do
api = ::Api.new(cli)
::Api.should_receive(:new).once do |arg|
arg.should be_an_instance_of(::Cli)
api
end
start
end
You can save the original method (new) in a local variable and then use it to return the new api from within the block:
original_method = ::Api.method(:new)
::Api.should_receive(:new).once do |arg|
arg.should be_an_instance_of(::Cli)
original_method.call(arg)
end
This will run the expectation, checking that the argument is an instance of ::Cli, and then return the value from the original method (i.e. the api).
RuNubie here. I've got a class Login that logs into gmail using the net/IMAP library. What is happening is that I create a new instance of that class, such as:
a = Login.new("username", "gmail.com", "passw")
Then, I'm working on other classes that will do some "stuff" with the mailbox. The problem is that the #imap variable I've defined in Login seems to have disappeared (due to scoping I assume).
This is how #imap is declared in Login class:
#imap = Net::IMAP.new('imap.gmail.com',993,true,nil,false)
So this:
#today = Date.today
#received_today = imap.search(["SINCE", #today.strftime("%d-%b-%Y")]).count.to_s
...returns an error. These are the two errors I've gotten while playing around with this. The first one is when I use imap, the second one is when I try #imap:
NameError: undefined local variable or method `imap' for #<Object:0x10718d2a8>
NoMethodError: undefined method `search' for nil:NilClass
What are the best practices for dealing with a situation like this? Is the only solution to define my methods that do "stuff" in the same class where I'm creating the new instance of Net::IMAP? Is declaring #imap as a global variable $imap a bad practice? So confused, I bet the answer is very simple and obvious too, but I'm just not seeing it. Thanks!
This:
#received_today = imap.search(["SINCE", #today.strftime("%d-%b-%Y")]).count.to_s
won't work because, well, there is no imap in scope at that point and so you get a NameError. When you try it like this:
#received_today = #imap.search(["SINCE", #today.strftime("%d-%b-%Y")]).count.to_s
You get a NoMethodError because instance variables, such as #imap, are automatically created at first use and initialized as nil. Your real #imap is in another object so you can't refer to it as #imap anywhere else.
I think you want a structure more like this:
class User
def imap
if(!#imap)
#imap = Net::IMAP.new('imap.gmail.com', 993, true, nil, false)
# and presumably an #imap.authenticate too...
end
#imap
end
end
class OtherOne
def some_method(user)
#today = Date.today
#received_today = user.imap.search(["SINCE", #today.strftime("%d-%b-%Y")]).count.to_s
end
end
Keep your Net::IMAP localized inside your User and let other objects use it by providing a simple accessor method.
Oh and that global $imap idea, I'll just pretend I didn't see that as globals are almost always a really bad idea.
a shorter way to define the imap variable in the User class, which is pretty much the same as what mu posted:
class User
def imap
#imap ||= Net::IMAP.new...
end
end