I have created a double, I am executing code that will call it with a method and a huge hash as a argument, I want to verify one key of the argument, and then return a specific hash.
This is what I am doing
before :each do
allow(#my_double).to receive(:do_stuff).and_return({stuff: 42})
end
it "can do stuff" do
expect(#my_double).to receive(:do_stuff) do |arg|
expect(arg).to be_a(Hash)
expect(arg[:my_arg]).to eq(3)
end
TestObject.stuff() # will invoke do_stuff on the double
end
What happens is, the first time do_stuff is called, it returns true which is the result of the receive block, but on subsequent calls(tested in pry) it correctly returns {stuff: 42} but since the first call is wrong, my method exceptions out when it tries to call[:stuff] on the return.
I am trying to let allow define the behaviour of the double so I don't want to put the return in the bottom of the expect.. but is there any way around it?
Figured out the answer is to use an as yet undocumented argument matcher hash_including much like my first comment
expect(#my_double).to receive(:do_stuff).with(hash_including(my_arg: 3))
This works nicely.
Related
I'm unclear on why there is a need to pass block arguments when calling a function.
why not just pass in as function arguments and what happens to the block arguments, how are they passed and used?
m.call(somevalue) {|_k, v| v['abc'] = 'xyz'}
module m
def call ( arg1, *arg2, &arg3)
end
end
Ruby, like almost all mainstream programming languages, is a strict language, meaning that arguments are fully evaluated before being passed into the method.
Now, imagine you want to implement (a simplified version of) Integer#times. The implementation would look a little bit like this:
class Integer
def my_times(action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
return if zero?
action_to_be_executed
pred.my_times(action_to_be_executed)
end
end
3.my_times(puts "Hello")
# Hello
0.my_times(puts "Hello")
# Hello
-1.my_times(puts "Hello")
# Hello
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
As you can see, 3.my_times(puts "Hello") printed Hello exactly once, instead of thrice, as it should do. Also, 0.my_times(puts "Hello") printed Hello exactly once, instead of not at all, as it should do, despite the fact that it returns in the second line of the method, and thus action_to_be_executed is never even evaluated. Even -1.my_times(puts "Hello") printed Hello exactly once, despite that fact that it raises an ArgumentError exception as the very first thing in the method and thus the entire rest of the method body is never evaluated.
Why is that? Because Ruby is strict! Again, strict means that arguments are fully evaluated before being passed. So, what this means is that before my_times even gets called, the puts "Hello" is evaluated (which prints Hello to the standard output stream), and the result of that evaluation (which is just nil because Kernel#puts always returns nil) is passed into the method.
So, what we need to do, is somehow delay the evaluation of the argument. One way we know how to delay evaluation, is by using a method: methods are only evaluated when they are called.
So, we take a page out of Java's playbook, and define a Single Abstract Method Protocol: the argument that is being passed to my_each must be an object which implements a method with a specific name. Let's call it call, because, well, we are going to call it.
This would look a little bit like this:
class Integer
def my_times(action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
return if zero?
action_to_be_executed.call
pred.my_times(action_to_be_executed)
end
end
def (hello = Object.new).call
puts "Hello"
end
3.my_times(hello)
# Hello
# Hello
# Hello
0.my_times(hello)
-1.my_times(hello)
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
Nice! It works! The argument that is passed is of course still strictly evaluated before being passed (we can't change the fundamental nature of Ruby from within Ruby itself), but this evaluation only results in the object that is bound by the local variable hello. The code that we want to run is another layer of indirection away and will only be executed at the point where we actually call it.
It also has another advantage: Integer#times actually makes the index of the current iteration available to the action as an argument. This was impossible to implement with our first solution, but here we can do it, because we are using a method and methods can take arguments:
class Integer
def my_times(action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
__my_times_helper(action_to_be_executed)
end
protected
def __my_times_helper(action_to_be_executed, index = 0)
return if zero?
action_to_be_executed.call(index)
pred.__my_times_helper(action_to_be_executed, index + 1)
end
end
def (hello = Object.new).call(i)
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
3.my_times(hello)
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
0.my_times(hello)
-1.my_times(hello)
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
However, this is not actually very readable. If you didn't want to give a name to this action that we are trying to pass but instead simply literally write it down inside the argument list, it would look something like this:
3.my_times(Object.new.tap do |obj|
def obj.call(i)
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
end)
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
or on one line:
3.my_times(Object.new.tap do |obj| def obj.call; puts "Hello from iteration #{i}" end end)
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
# or:
3.my_times(Object.new.tap {|obj| def obj.call; puts "Hello from iteration #{i}" end })
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
Now, I don't know about you, but I find that pretty ugly.
In Ruby 1.9, Ruby added Proc literals aka stabby lambda literals to the language. Lambda literals are a concise literal syntax for writing objects with a call method, specifically Proc objects with Proc#call.
Using lambda literals, and without any changes to our existing code, it looks something like this:
3.my_times(-> i { puts "Hello from iteration #{i}" })
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
This does not look bad!
When Yukihiro "matz" Matsumoto designed Ruby almost thirty years ago in early 1993, he did a survey of the core libraries and standard libraries of languages like Smalltalk, Scheme, and Common Lisp to figure out how such methods that take a piece of code as an argument are actually used, and he found that the overwhelming majority of such methods take exactly one code argument and all they do with that argument is call it.
So, he decided to add special language support for a single argument that contains code and can only be called. This argument is both syntactically and semantically lightweight, in particular, it looks syntactically exactly like any other control structure, and it is semantically not an object.
This special language feature, you probably guessed it, are blocks.
Every method in Ruby has an optional block parameter. I can always pass a block to a method. It's up to the method to do anything with the block. Here, for example, the block is useless because Kernel#puts doesn't do anything with a block:
puts("Hello") { puts "from the block" }
# Hello
Because blocks are not objects, you cannot call methods on them. Also, because there can be only one block argument, there is no need to give it a name: if you refer to a block, it's always clear which block because there can be only one. But, if the block doesn't have methods and doesn't have a name, how can we call it?
That's what the yield keyword is for. It temporarily "yields" control flow to the block, or, in other words, it calls the block.
With blocks, our solution would look like this:
class Integer
def my_times(&action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
return enum_for(__callee__) unless block_given?
__my_times_helper(&action_to_be_executed)
end
protected
def __my_times_helper(&action_to_be_executed, index = 0)
return if zero?
yield index
pred.__my_times_helper(&action_to_be_executed, index + 1)
end
end
3.my_times do
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
0.my_times do
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
-1.my_times do
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
Okay, you might notice that I simplified a bit when I wrote above that the only thing you can do with a block is call it. There are two other things you can do with it:
You can check whether a block argument was passed using Kernel#block_given?. Since blocks are always optional, and blocks have no names, there must be a way to check whether a block was passed or not.
You can "roll up" a block (which is not an object and doesn't have a name) into a Proc object (which is an object) and bind it to a parameter (which gives it a name) using the & ampersand unary prefix sigil in the parameter list of the method. Now that we have an object, and a way to refer to it, we can store it in a variable, return it from a method, or (as we are doing here) pass it along as an argument to a different method, which otherwise wouldn't be possible.
There is also the opposite operation: with the & ampersand unary prefix operator, you can "unroll" a Proc object into a block in an argument list; this makes it so that the method behaves as if you had passed the code that is stored inside the Proc as a literal block argument to the method.
And there you have it! That's what blocks are for: a semantically and syntactically lightweight form of passing code to a method.
There are other possible approaches, of course. The approach that is closest to Ruby is probably Smalltalk. Smalltalk also has a concept called blocks (in fact, that is where Ruby got both the idea and the name from). Similarly to Ruby, Smalltalk blocks have a syntactically light-weight literal form, but they are objects, and you can pass more than one to a method. Thanks to Smalltalk's generally light-weight and simple syntax, especially the keyword method syntax which intersperses parts of the method name with the arguments, even passing multiple blocks to a method call is very concise and readable.
For example, Smalltalk actually does not have an if / then / else conditional expression, in fact, Smalltalk has no control structures at all. Everything is done with methods. So, the way that a conditional works, is that the two boolean classes TrueClass and FalseClass each have a method named ifTrue:ifFalse: which takes two block arguments, and the two implementations will simply either evaluate the first or the second block. For example, the implementation in TrueClass might look a little bit like this (note that Smalltalk has no syntax for classes or methods, instead classes and methods are created in the IDE by creating class objects and method objects via the GUI):
True>>ifTrue: trueBlock ifFalse: falseBlock
"Answer with the value of `trueBlock`."
↑trueBlock value
The corresponding implementation in FalseClass would then look like this:
FalseClass>>ifTrue: trueBlock ifFalse: falseBlock
"Answer with the value of `falseBlock`."
↑falseBlock value
And you would call it like this:
2 < 3 ifTrue: [ Transcript show: 'yes' ] ifFalse: [ Transcript show: 'no' ].
"yes"
4 < 3 ifTrue: [ Transcript show: 'yes' ] ifFalse: [ Transcript show: 'no' ].
"no"
In ECMAScript, you can simply use function definitions as expressions, and there is also lightweight syntax for functions.
In the various Lisps, code is just data, and data is code, so you can just pass the code as an argument as data, then inside the function, treat that data as code again.
Scala has call-by-name parameters which are only evaluated when you use their name, and they are evaluated every time you use their name. It would look something like this:
implicit class IntegerTimes(val i: Int) extends AnyVal {
#scala.annotation.tailrec
def times(actionToBeExecuted: => Unit): Unit = {
if (i < 0) throw new Error()
if (i == 0) () else { actionToBeExecuted; (i - 1).times(actionToBeExecuted) }
}
}
3.times { println("Hello") }
// Hello
// Hello
// Hello
I want a vector containing the result of rolling 10 dice (say). I can do this:
([6]*10).map{|x|rand(x)}
But this gives me a "wrong number of arguments" error:
([6]*10).map(:rand)
Is there a point-free way to pass the one-argument version of rand to map?
This will work:
([6]*10).map(&method(:rand))
This won't:
([6]*10).map(&:rand)
Symbol#to_proc is (roughly) implemented like this:
class Symbol
def to_proc
-> *args { args.first.public_send(self, *args.drop(1)) }
end
end
In other words, it takes the first argument as the receiver and the other arguments as arguments to the method that is named by the Symbol. So, in your case, it is calling
6.rand
over and over.
This "kind of" works, because 6 is an Integer, Integer is an indirect subclass of Object, which mixes in Kernel, which defines rand. But! rand is private, which means it can only be called without an explicit receiver. Also, you aren't passing any arguments, therefore even if it were public, you'd get the behavior of rand without arguments, which is a Float between 0 and 1.
Whereas Method#to_proc passes all arguments to the method (it already has its receiver bound, after all), so in this case, it will call
self.rand(6)
over and over. Which of course works, because self is an Object, Object includes Kernel, and rand is defined in Kernel.
This won't work as well:
([6]*10).map(:rand)
For the simple reason that map doesn't have any parameters, but you are passing an argument.
You can write:
([6]*10).map(&method(:rand))
This would be clean way to write it:
10.times.map { rand(6) }
Writing it this way makes it easier to see what argument is passed to rand.
For the sake of simplicity, I've tried to abstract the problem down to its core elements. I've included a small piece of functionality wherein I use Socket to show that I want to pass the block further down into a method which is a black box for all intents and purposes. I'm also passing a constant True for the sake of showing I want to pass arguments as well as a yield block.
With all that being said, if I small have a hierarchy of calls as such:
def foo(use_local_source)
if use_local_source
Socket.unix("/var/run/my.sock") &yield
else
Socket.tcp("my.remote.com",1234) &yield
end
end
foo(True) { |socket|
name = socket.read
puts "Hi #{name}, I'm from foo."
}
How can I pass the implicitly declared block right down through foo and into Socket as if I were calling Socket.tcp(...) { ... } directly.
I know I could set it as an argument, but it doesn't feel idiomatic to Ruby. Is this also untrue and I should pass it as an argument? I've tried combinations of & and *, and I get a range of exception.
def foo(use_local_source)
if use_local_source
yield Socket.unix("/var/run/my.sock")
else
yield Socket.tcp("my.remote.com",1234)
end
end
From the docs for yield:
Yields control back to the context that resumed the fiber, passing along any arguments that were passed to it.
I have the following code, which is supposed to provide a simple true-false wrapper over Array#detect, which is nil-element.
class Array
def any &expr
if (self.detect expr)
return true
else
return false
end
end
end
For some weird reason, no matter what is passed to &expr, it ALWAYS returns true! Why is this?
The documentation for Enumerable#detect says that it can optionally take one argument. If it doesn't find the element that matched your block, it returns this argument. In your case, you're passing a Proc object, expr to detect, and not passing a block. This causes detect to return an enumerator, which won't be interpreted as a "falsy" value.
I think instead you want self.detect &expr to pass an actual block instead of a Proc.
This is for an already existing public API that I cannot break, but I do wish to extend.
Currently the method takes a string or a symbol or anything else that makes sense when passed as the first parameter to send
I'd like to add the ability to send a list of strings, symbols, et cetera. I could just use is_a? Array, but there are other ways of sending lists, and that's not very ruby-ish.
I'll be calling map on the list, so the first inclination is to use respond_to? :map. But a string also responds to :map, so that won't work.
How about treating them all as Arrays? The behavior you want for Strings is the same as for an Array containing only that String:
def foo(obj, arg)
[*arg].each { |method| obj.send(method) }
end
The [*arg] trick works because the splat operator (*) turns a single element into itself or an Array into an inline list of its elements.
Later
This is basically just a syntactically sweetened version or Arnaud's answer, though there are subtle differences if you pass an Array containing other Arrays.
Later still
There's an additional difference having to do with foo's return value. If you call foo(bar, :baz), you might be surprised to get [baz] back. To solve this, you can add a Kestrel:
def foo(obj, arg)
returning(arg) do |args|
[*args].each { |method| obj.send(method) }
end
end
which will always return arg as passed. Or you could do returning(obj) so you could chain calls to foo. It's up to you what sort of return-value behavior you want.
A critical detail that was overlooked in all of the answers: strings do not respond to :map, so the simplest answer is in the original question: just use respond_to? :map.
Since Array and String are both Enumerables, there's not an elegant way to say "a thing that's an Enumberable, but not a String," at least not in the way being discussed.
What I would do is duck-type for Enumerable (responds_to? :[]) and then use a case statement, like so:
def foo(obj, arg)
if arg.respond_to?(:[])
case arg
when String then obj.send(arg)
else arg.each { |method_name| obj.send(method_name) }
end
end
end
or even cleaner:
def foo(obj, arg)
case arg
when String then obj.send(arg)
when Enumerable then arg.each { |method| obj.send(method) }
else nil
end
end
Perhaps the question wasn't clear enough, but a night's sleep showed me two clean ways to answer this question.
1: to_sym is available on String and Symbol and should be available on anything that quacks like a string.
if arg.respond_to? :to_sym
obj.send(arg, ...)
else
# do array stuff
end
2: send throws TypeError when passed an array.
begin
obj.send(arg, ...)
rescue TypeError
# do array stuff
end
I particularly like #2. I severely doubt any of the users of the old API are expecting TypeError to be raised by this method...
Let's say your function is named func
I would make an array from the parameters with
def func(param)
a = Array.new
a << param
a.flatten!
func_array(a)
end
You end up with implementing your function func_array for arrays only
with func("hello world") you'll get a.flatten! => [ "hello world" ]
with func(["hello", "world"] ) you'll get a.flatten! => [ "hello", "world" ]
Can you just switch behavior based on parameter.class.name? It's ugly, but if I understand correctly, you have a single method that you'll be passing multiple types to - you'll have to differentiate somehow.
Alternatively, just add a method that handles an array type parameter. It's slightly different behavior so an extra method might make sense.
Use Marshal to serialize your objects before sending these.
If you don't want to monkeypatch, just massage the list to an appropriate string before the send. If you don't mind monkeypatching or inheriting, but want to keep the same method signature:
class ToBePatched
alias_method :__old_takes_a_string, :takes_a_string
#since the old method wanted only a string, check for a string and call the old method
# otherwise do your business with the map on things that respond to a map.
def takes_a_string( string_or_mappable )
return __old_takes_a_string( string_or_mappable ) if String === string_or_mappable
raise ArgumentError unless string_or_mappable.responds_to?( :map )
# do whatever you wish to do
end
end
Between those 3 types I'd do this
is_array = var.respond_to?(:to_h)
is_string = var.respond_to?(:each_char)
is_symbol = var.respond_to?(:to_proc)
Should give a unique answer for [], :sym, 'str'