I'm having trouble developing unit tests for a method that calls itself (a game loop) in Ruby using minitest. What I've attempted has been stubbing the method I'm trying to call in said game loop with my input. Here's the game loop:
#main game loop
def playRound
#draw board
#board.printBoard
#get input
playerInput = gets.chomp #returns user input without ending newline
#interpret input, quitting or beginning set selection for a player
case playerInput
when "q"
quit
when "a", "l"
set = getPlayerSet()
if(playerInput == "a")
player = 1
else
player = 2
end
when "h"
if #hintsEnabled
giveHint
playRound
else
puts "Hints are disabled"
playRound
end
else
puts "Input not recognized."
end
if(set != nil)
#have board test set
checkSet(set, player)
end
#check if player has quitted or there are no more valid sets
unless #quitted || #board.boardComplete
playRound
end
end
Much of it is ultimately irrelevant, all I'm trying to test is that this switch statement is calling the correct methods. Currently I'm trying to circumvent the loop by stubbing the called method to raise an error (which my test assers_raise's):
def test_playRound_a_input_triggers_getPlayerSet
#game.stub :getPlayerSet, raise(StandardError) do
assert_raises(StandardError) do
simulate_stdin("") {
#game.playRound
}
end
end
end
This approach does not seem to work, however, as Minitest is recording the results of the above test as an error with the message
E
Error:
TestGame#test_playRound_a_input_triggers_getPlayerSet:
StandardError: StandardError
test_game.rb:136:in `test_playRound_a_input_triggers_getPlayerSet'
If anyone has any advice or direction for me it would be massively appreciated as I can't tell what's going wrong
I'm not very familiar with minitest, but I expect you need to wrap the raise(exception) in a block, otherwise your test code is raising the exception immediately in your test (not as a result of the stubbed method being called).
Something like:
class CustomTestError < RuntimeError; end
def test_playRound_a_input_triggers_getPlayerSet
raise_error = -> { raise(CustomTestError) }
#game.stub(:getPlayerSet, raise_error) do
assert_raises(CustomTestError) do
simulate_stdin("") {
#game.playRound
}
end
end
end
-- EDIT --
Sometimes when i'm having difficulty testing a method it's a sign that I should refactor things to be easier to test (and thus have a cleaner, simpler interface, possibly be easier to understand later).
I don't code games and don't know what's typical for a game loop, but that method looks very difficult to test. I'd try to break it into a couple steps where each step/command can be easily tested in isolation. One option for this would be to define a method for each command and use send. This would allow you to test that each command works separately from your input parsing and separately from the game loop itself.
COMMANDS = {
q: :quit,
# etc..
}.stringify_keys.freeze
def play_round # Ruby methods should be snake_case rather than camelCase
#board.print_board
run_command(gets.chomp)
play_round unless #quitted || #board.board_complete
end
def run_command(input)
command = parse_input_to_command(input)
run_command(command)
end
def parse_input_to_command(input)
COMMANDS[input] || :bad_command
end
def run_command(command)
send("run_#{command}")
end
# Then a method for each command, e.g.
def run_bad_input
puts "Input not recognized"
end
However, for this type of problem I really like a functional approach, where each command is just a stateless function that you pass state into and get new state back. These could either mutate their input state (eww) or return a new copy of the board with updated state (yay!). Something like:
COMMANDS = {
# All state change must be done on board. To be a functional pattern, you should not mutate the board but return a new one. For this I invent a `.copy()` method that takes attributes to update as input.
q: -> {|board| board.copy(quitted: true) },
h: -> HintGiver.new, # If these commands were complex, they could live in a separate class entirely.
bad_command: -> {|board| puts "Unrecognized command"; board },
#
}.stringify_keys.freeze
def play_round
#board.print_board
command = parse_input_to_command(gets.chomp)
#board = command.call(#board)
play_round unless #board.quitted || #board.board_complete
end
def parse_input_to_command(input)
COMMANDS[input] || COMMANDS[:bad_command]
end
I'm trying to get an if statement for users who put incorrect data.
Here's my code:
class Breweries::CLI
def start
puts "Hello!"
puts "---------------------------"
puts "Please enter your location:"
input = gets.strip.downcase
#data = Breweries::API.get_breweries(input)
#objects = Breweries::HoppyCode.all
if input.length < 1
puts "Sorry!!"
puts "```````"
start
else
display_info
end
end
def display_info
puts "You'll love the following spots!"
puts "********************************"
#objects.each.with_index(1) {|brewery, index| puts "#{index}. #{brewery.name}"}
puts "Please make a selection by index number for more information:"
input = gets.strip.downcase
if(input.to_i > 0)
#brewery = #objects[input.to_i - 1]
puts "name: #{#brewery.name}"
puts "street: #{#brewery.street}"
puts "city: #{#brewery.city}"
puts "phone: #{#brewery.phone}"
puts "website_url: #{#brewery.website_url}"
display_info
elsif (input == "quit")
quit
elsif (input == "menu")
start
end
end
def quit
puts "Goodbye. Drink responsibly and enjoy."
end
end
When I put something that would generate an error, it returns the following:
Please enter your location: nvifpejvf80ejvip
Traceback (most recent call last):
2: from bin/breweriesCLI:6:in `<main>'
1: from /home/munificent-format-5297/Development/breweries/lib/breweries/cli.rb:8:in `start' /home/munificent-format-5297/Development/breweries/lib/breweries/api.rb:6:in `get_breweries': undefined method `[]' for nil:NilClass (NoMethodError)
How can I solve the undefined method '[]' error? Here's the API code in case that's necessary.
class Breweries::API
def self.get_breweries(input)
#breweries_hash = HTTParty.get("https://api.openbrewerydb.org/breweries?by_city=#{input}")
breweries_obj = {
name: #breweries_hash[1]["name"],
street: #breweries_hash[3]["street"],
city: #breweries_hash[4]["city"],
phone: #breweries_hash[10]["phone"],
website_url: #breweries_hash[11]["website_url"]
}
Breweries::HoppyCode.new(breweries_obj)
end
end
When the input is invalid, the call to
#breweries_hash = HTTParty.get("...")
returns not the object you expect (I’d suggest it returns an empty hash.) That makes it impossible to get to details in the following lines. Depending on how are you to handle it, you might decide to e. g. early return from this function, or raise, or do something else.
To approach this, start with debugging the issue, like this:
#breweries_hash = HTTParty.get("...")
puts #breweries_hash.inspect
...
That way you’ll see what gets returned and get the ideas of how to handle it.
If I am right, and what is returned is an empty hash, you might want to early return from this function.
#breweries_hash = HTTParty.get("...")
return if #breweries_hash.empty?
...
Identifying the Problem
There are lots of ways to solve for the nil problem, but at a quick glance it seems like part of the problem here is that you're somehow expecting input to return a valid Hash object from your API call, but an empty String or an instance of FalseClass may not do that. Consider the following:
input = gets.strip.downcase # <RETURN> here gets an empty string
input #=> ""
input.to_i > 0 #=> false
Then consider that some downstream of Breweries::API.get_breweries is expecting to operate on a Hash object instead if an instance of NilClass. In this case, that looks like #breweries_hash[1]["name"] and other operations on #breweries_hash.
Some Options
Without knowing more about your code, I don't want to be prescriptive here. But in general, you can do one or more of the following:
Coerce arguments into the expected class in the method call, the method signature, or the method body. For example, for Array objects:
# coerce a String to an Array, raising an exception if it can't
input = ""
Array(input)
#=> [""]
# coerce some Array to a Hash
array = [:name, "foo", :street, "bar"]
Array(array.each_slice 2).to_h
#=> {:name=>"foo", :street=>"bar"}
Explicitly check that you have an Hash object:
fail "#breweries is not a Hash" unless #breweries.is_a? Hash
Raise an exception rather than return 0 if input isn't actually a valid Integer representation in the first place:
input = Integer(gets.strip.downcase)
Check if your Hash or Array object responds to the relevant method calls, and raise a more helpful exception message:
raise sprintf("#brewery: %s", #brewery.class) unless #brewery.respond_to? :[]
There are other things you might do as well. Broadly speaking, you need to adjust your code to check the return value of your call to ensure it's not nil, then branch/raise/rescue appropriately depending on whether or not you ever expect nils as a valid return value from Breweries::API.get_breweries.
A Note on Using Exceptions for Non-Exceptional Circumstances
As a rule of thumb, you should only raise exceptions for truly unexpected circumstances, or when the program should halt because some condition can't (or shouldn't) be handled within the program during runtime. Which is best in your particular use case is really a design decision, and outside the scope of the original question. However, you might want to read Avdi Grimm's Exceptional Ruby for a deeper explanation of when exceptions might better than branching or handlers (or vice versa), but the choice in your code is a little left of center of the problem you're actually dealing with right now.
In Learn Ruby The Hard Way book on exercise 19, it says one should take the provided function:
def cheese_and_crackers(cheese_count, boxes_of_crackers)
puts "You have #{cheese_count} cheeses!"
puts "You have #{boxes_of_crackers} boxes of crackers!"
puts "Man that's enough for a party!"
puts "Get a blanket.\n"
end
and explore different approaches with it. I tried to explore the function's arguments and write a text with it:
file = ARGV.first
puts "Let's make a test?"
puts "Does the output file exist? #{File.exist?(arquivo)} "
puts "Ready, hit RETURN to continue, CTRL-C to abort."
$stdin.gets
def success(price, recipe)
puts """Text goes on like this:
In order to become a coder, You must dedicate yourself.\n
For that, you must pay a price, such as #{price}\n
Becoming a coder also requires #{recipe}\n"""
end
puts "What is the price to pay in order to become a coder?"
price = $stdin.gets
puts "What are the fundamental components in order to become a coder?"
recipe = $stdin.gets
coder = success(price, recipe)
motivational = File.open(file, 'w')
motivational.write(coder)
puts "Read this every day."
But I can't seem to make it write the function into a new test.txt file. The test.txt file comes out empty.
When calling puts, you're writing to stdout, but the return value will be empty.
Change this:
def success(price, recipe)
return """Text goes on like this:
In order to become a coder, You must dedicate yourself.\n
For that, you must pay a price, such as #{price}\n
Becoming a coder also requires #{recipe}\n"""
end
Then also:
motivational.close()
EDIT: Here's an extended explanation: when calling puts, you're just writing the string to stdout, which is the default output for programs. Methods (functions) can have a return value. For your success method, you need to return the string, so that you can write it in your file. If you call puts instead of return, the success method will not return any value, therefore leaving the file empty.
As for the close() call, it is advisable to close the file stream before your script ends.
Take a look at these references for more information:
https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/quickstart/2/
http://ruby-doc.org/core-2.2.3/IO.html
I was just reading a blog article and noticed that the author used tap in a snippet something like:
user = User.new.tap do |u|
u.username = "foobar"
u.save!
end
My question is what exactly is the benefit or advantage of using tap? Couldn't I just do:
user = User.new
user.username = "foobar"
user.save!
or better yet:
user = User.create! username: "foobar"
When readers encounter:
user = User.new
user.username = "foobar"
user.save!
they would have to follow all the three lines and then recognize that it is just creating an instance named user.
If it were:
user = User.new.tap do |u|
u.username = "foobar"
u.save!
end
then that would be immediately clear. A reader would not have to read what is inside the block to know that an instance user is created.
Another case to use tap is to make manipulation on object before returning it.
So instead of this:
def some_method
...
some_object.serialize
some_object
end
we can save extra line:
def some_method
...
some_object.tap{ |o| o.serialize }
end
In some situation this technique can save more then one line and make code more compact.
This can be useful with debugging a series of ActiveRecord chained scopes.
User
.active .tap { |users| puts "Users so far: #{users.size}" }
.non_admin .tap { |users| puts "Users so far: #{users.size}" }
.at_least_years_old(25) .tap { |users| puts "Users so far: #{users.size}" }
.residing_in('USA')
This makes it super easy to debug at any point in the chain without having to store anything in in a local variable nor requiring much altering of the original code.
And lastly, use it as a quick and unobtrusive way to debug without disrupting normal code execution:
def rockwell_retro_encabulate
provide_inverse_reactive_current
synchronize_cardinal_graham_meters
#result.tap(&method(:puts))
# Will debug `#result` just before returning it.
end
Using tap, as the blogger did, is simply a convenience method. It may have been overkill in your example, but in cases where you'd want to do a bunch of things with the user, tap can arguably provide a cleaner looking interface. So, perhaps it may be better in an example as follows:
user = User.new.tap do |u|
u.build_profile
u.process_credit_card
u.ship_out_item
u.send_email_confirmation
u.blahblahyougetmypoint
end
Using the above makes it easy to quickly see that all those methods are grouped together in that they all refer to the same object (the user in this example). The alternative would be:
user = User.new
user.build_profile
user.process_credit_card
user.ship_out_item
user.send_email_confirmation
user.blahblahyougetmypoint
Again, this is debatable - but the case can be made that the second version looks a little messier, and takes a little more human parsing to see that all the methods are being called on the same object.
If you wanted to return the user after setting the username you'd need to do
user = User.new
user.username = 'foobar'
user
With tap you could save that awkward return
User.new.tap do |user|
user.username = 'foobar'
end
It results in less-cluttered code as the scope of variable is limited only to the part where it is really needed. Also, the indentation within the block makes the code more readable by keeping relevant code together.
Description of tap says:
Yields self to the block, and then returns self. The primary purpose
of this method is to “tap into” a method chain, in order to perform
operations on intermediate results within the chain.
If we search rails source code for tap usage, we can find some interesting usages. Below are few items (not exhaustive list) that will give us few ideas on how to use them:
Append an element to an array based on certain conditions
%w(
annotations
...
routes
tmp
).tap { |arr|
arr << 'statistics' if Rake.application.current_scope.empty?
}.each do |task|
...
end
Initializing an array and returning it
[].tap do |msg|
msg << "EXPLAIN for: #{sql}"
...
msg << connection.explain(sql, bind)
end.join("\n")
As syntactic sugar to make code more readable - One can say, in below example, use of variables hash and server makes the intent of code clearer.
def select(*args, &block)
dup.tap { |hash| hash.select!(*args, &block) }
end
Initialize/invoke methods on newly created objects.
Rails::Server.new.tap do |server|
require APP_PATH
Dir.chdir(Rails.application.root)
server.start
end
Below is an example from test file
#pirate = Pirate.new.tap do |pirate|
pirate.catchphrase = "Don't call me!"
pirate.birds_attributes = [{:name => 'Bird1'},{:name => 'Bird2'}]
pirate.save!
end
To act on the result of a yield call without having to use a temporary variable.
yield.tap do |rendered_partial|
collection_cache.write(key, rendered_partial, cache_options)
end
Visualize your example within a function
def make_user(name)
user = User.new
user.username = name
user.save!
end
There is a big maintenance risk with that approach, basically the implicit return value.
In that code you do depend on save! returning the saved user. But if you use a different duck (or your current one evolves) you might get other stuff like a completion status report. Therefore changes to the duck might break the code, something that would not happen if you ensure the return value with a plain user or use tap.
I have seen accidents like this quite often, specially with functions where the return value is normally not used except for one dark buggy corner.
The implicit return value tends to be one of those things where newbies tend to break things adding new code after the last line without noticing the effect. They do not see what the above code really means:
def make_user(name)
user = User.new
user.username = name
return user.save! # notice something different now?
end
A variation on #sawa's answer:
As already noted, using tap helps figuring out the intent of your code (while not necessarily making it more compact).
The following two functions are equally long, but in the first one you have to read through the end to figure out why I initialized an empty Hash at the beginning.
def tapping1
# setting up a hash
h = {}
# working on it
h[:one] = 1
h[:two] = 2
# returning the hash
h
end
Here, on the other hand, you know right from the start that the hash being initialized will be the block's output (and, in this case, the function's return value).
def tapping2
# a hash will be returned at the end of this block;
# all work will occur inside
Hash.new.tap do |h|
h[:one] = 1
h[:two] = 2
end
end
It’s a helper for call chaining. It passes its object into the given block and, after the block finishes, returns the object:
an_object.tap do |o|
# do stuff with an_object, which is in o #
end ===> an_object
The benefit is that tap always returns the object it’s called on, even if the block returns some other result. Thus you can insert a tap block into the middle of an existing method pipeline without breaking the flow.
I would say that there is no advantage to using tap. The only potential benefit, as #sawa points out is, and I quote: "A reader would not have to read what is inside the block to know that an instance user is created." However, at that point the argument can be made that if you're doing non-simplistic record creation logic, your intent would be better communicated by extracting that logic into its own method.
I hold to the opinion that tap is an unnecessary burden on the readability of the code, and could be done without, or substituted with a better technique, like Extract Method.
While tap is a convenience method, it's also personal preference. Give tap a try. Then write some code without using tap, see if you like one way over another.
There is a tool called flog that measures how difficult it is to read a method. "The higher the score, the more pain the code is in."
def with_tap
user = User.new.tap do |u|
u.username = "foobar"
u.save!
end
end
def without_tap
user = User.new
user.username = "foobar"
user.save!
end
def using_create
user = User.create! username: "foobar"
end
and according on flog's result the method with tap is the most difficult to read (and I agree with it)
4.5: main#with_tap temp.rb:1-4
2.4: assignment
1.3: save!
1.3: new
1.1: branch
1.1: tap
3.1: main#without_tap temp.rb:8-11
2.2: assignment
1.1: new
1.1: save!
1.6: main#using_create temp.rb:14-16
1.1: assignment
1.1: create!
There could be number of uses and places where we may be able to use tap. So far I have only found following 2 uses of tap.
1) The primary purpose of this method is to tap into a method chain, in order to perform operations on intermediate results within the chain. i.e
(1..10).tap { |x| puts "original: #{x.inspect}" }.to_a.
tap { |x| puts "array: #{x.inspect}" }.
select { |x| x%2 == 0 }.
tap { |x| puts "evens: #{x.inspect}" }.
map { |x| x*x }.
tap { |x| puts "squares: #{x.inspect}" }
2) Did you ever find yourself calling a method on some object, and the return value not being what you wanted it to? Maybe you wanted to add an arbitrary value to a set of parameters stored in a hash. You update it with Hash.[], but you get back bar instead of the params hash, so you have to return it explicitly. i.e
def update_params(params)
params[:foo] = 'bar'
params
end
In order to overcome this situation here, tap method comes into play. Just call it on the object, then pass tap a block with the code that you wanted to run. The object will be yielded to the block, then be returned. i.e
def update_params(params)
params.tap {|p| p[:foo] = 'bar' }
end
There are dozens of other use cases, try finding them yourself :)
Source:
1) API Dock Object tap
2) five-ruby-methods-you-should-be-using
You're right: the use of tap in your example is kind of pointless and probably less clean than your alternatives.
As Rebitzele notes, tap is just a convenience method, often used to create a shorter reference to the current object.
One good use case for tap is for debugging: you can modify the object, print the current state, then continue modifying the object in the same block. See here for example: http://moonbase.rydia.net/mental/blog/programming/eavesdropping-on-expressions.
I occasionally like to use tap inside methods to conditionally return early while returning the current object otherwise.
You can make your codes more modular using tap, and can achieve a better management of local variables. For example, in the following code, you don't need to assign a local variable to the newly created object, in the scope of the method. Note that the block variable, u, is scoped within the block. It is actually one of the beauties of ruby code.
def a_method
...
name = "foobar"
...
return User.new.tap do |u|
u.username = name
u.save!
end
end
In rails we can use tap to whitelist parameters explicitly:
def client_params
params.require(:client).permit(:name).tap do |whitelist|
whitelist[:name] = params[:client][:name]
end
end
I will give another example which I have used. I have a method user_params which returns the params needed to save for the user (this is a Rails project)
def user_params
params.require(:user).permit(
:first_name,
:last_name,
:email,
:address_attributes
)
end
You can see I dont return anything but ruby return the output of the last line.
Then, after sometime, I needed to add a new attribute conditionally. So, I changed it to something like this:
def user_params
u_params = params.require(:user).permit(
:first_name,
:last_name,
:email,
:address_attributes
)
u_params[:time_zone] = address_timezone if u_params[:address_attributes]
u_params
end
Here we can use tap to remove the local variable and remove the return:
def user_params
params.require(:user).permit(
:first_name,
:last_name,
:email,
:address_attributes
).tap do |u_params|
u_params[:time_zone] = address_timezone if u_params[:address_attributes]
end
end
In the world where functional programming pattern is becoming a best practice (https://maryrosecook.com/blog/post/a-practical-introduction-to-functional-programming), you can see tap, as a map on a single value, indeed, to modify your data on a transformation chain.
transformed_array = array.map(&:first_transformation).map(&:second_transformation)
transformed_value = item.tap(&:first_transformation).tap(&:second_transformation)
No need to declare item multiple times here.
What is the difference?
The difference in terms of code readability is purely stylistic.
Code Walk through:
user = User.new.tap do |u|
u.username = "foobar"
u.save!
end
Key points:
Notice how the u variable is now used as block parameter?
After the block is done, the user variable should now point to a User ( with a username: ‘foobar’, and who is also saved).
It's just pleasant and easier to read.
API Documentation
Here’s an easy to read version of the source code:
class Object
def tap
yield self
self
end
end
For more info, see these links:
https://apidock.com/ruby/Object/tap
http://ruby-doc.org/core-2.2.3/Object.html#method-i-tap
Apart from the above answers, I have used tap in stubbing and mocking while writing RSpecs.
Scenario: When I have a complex query to stub and mock with multiple arguments which shouldn't go missed. The alternative here is to use receive_message_chain (but it lacks the details).
# Query
Product
.joins(:bill)
.where("products.availability = ?", 1)
.where("bills.status = ?", "paid")
.select("products.id", "bills.amount")
.first
# RSpecs
product_double = double('product')
expect(Product).to receive(:joins).with(:bill).and_return(product_double.tap do |product_scope|
expect(product_scope).to receive(:where).with("products.availability = ?", 1).and_return(product_scope)
expect(product_scope).to receive(:where).with("bills.status = ?", "paid").and_return(product_scope)
expect(product_scope).to receive(:select).with("products.id", "bills.amount").and_return(product_scope)
expect(product_scope).to receive(:first).and_return({ id: 1, amount: 100 })
end)
# Alternative way by using `receive_message_chain`
expect(Product).to receive_message_chain(:joins, :where, :where, :select).and_return({ id: 1, amount: 100 })
Very often in Ruby (and Rails specifically) you have to check if something exists and then perform an action on it, for example:
if #objects.any?
puts "We have these objects:"
#objects.each { |o| puts "hello: #{o}"
end
This is as short as it gets and all is good, but what if you have #objects.some_association.something.hit_database.process instead of #objects? I would have to repeat it second time inside the if expression and what if I don't know the implementation details and the method calls are expensive?
The obvious choice is to create a variable and then test it and then process it, but then you have to come up with a variable name (ugh) and it will also hang around in memory until the end of the scope.
Why not something like this:
#objects.some_association.something.hit_database.process.with :any? do |objects|
puts "We have these objects:"
objects.each { ... }
end
How would you do this?
Note that there's no reason to check that an array has at least one element with any? if you're only going to send each, because sending each to an empty array is a no-op.
To answer your question, perhaps you are looking for https://github.com/raganwald/andand?
Indeed, using a variable pollutes the namespace, but still, I think if (var = value).predicate is is a pretty common idiom and usually is perfectly ok:
if (objects = #objects.some_association.hit_database).present?
puts "We have these objects: #{objects}"
end
Option 2: if you like to create your own abstractions in a declarative fashion, that's also possible using a block:
#objects.some_association.hit_database.as(:if => :present?) do |objects|
puts "We have these objects: #{objects}"
end
Writing Object#as(options = {}) is pretty straigthforward.
What about tap?
#objects.some_association.something.hit_database.process.tap do |objects|
if objects.any?
puts "We have these objects:"
objects.each { ... }
end
end
Edit: If you're using Ruby 1.9, the Object#tap method provides the same functionality as the code listed below.
It sounds like you just want to be able to save a reference to an object without polluting the scope, correct? How about we open up the Object class and add a method do, which will just yield itself to the block:
class Object
def do
yield self if block_given?
return self # allow chaining
end
end
We can then call, for example:
[1,2,3].do { |a| puts a.length if a.any? }
=> 3
[].do { |a| puts a.length if a.any? }
=> nil