I am working with some code which logs to a global static logging class, e.g.:
GlobalLog.debug("Some message")
However in my tests, I don't want to include the real log, because it introduces a lot of unwanted dependencies. So I want to mock it out:
describe "some function" do
before(:all) do
log = double('log')
GlobalLog = log
log.stub(:debug)
end
...
end
Unfortunately, because doubles are cleared out after each example, this isn't allowed:
https://www.relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/docs/scope
If I change the before(:all) to before(:each), the code works, but I get a warning:
warning: already initialized constant GlobalLog
This is clogging up my test output, so I'd like to avoid the warning. Is there a clean solution?
Define GlobalLog once in your spec_helper.rb.
class GlobalLog
class << self
[:info, :debug, :warn, :error].each do |method|
define_method(method) {|*|}
end
end
end
You could throw it in spec/support if you want to be cleaner about it.
Why won't you stub original GlobalLog object method?
before(:each)
GlobalLog.stub(:debug)
end
Related
Code being tested:
class Session
def initialize
#interface = Interface.new(self)
#interface.hello
end
end
class Interface
def initialize(session, out = $STDOUT)
#session = session
#out = out
end
def hello
#out.puts "hello"
end
end
Test:
describe Session do
let (:fake_stdout) {double("$STDOUT", :puts => true)}
let (:interface) {instance_double("Interface", :out => "fake_stdout")}
let (:session) { Session.new }
describe "#new" do
it "creates an instance of Session" do
expect(session).to be_an_instance_of(Session)
end
end
end
This throws private method 'puts' called for nil:NilClass. It seems it's not seeing the fake_stdout with its specified :puts as out. I tried tying it with allow(Interface).to receive(:new).with(session).and_return(interface), but that changed nothing. How do I get the tested Session class to see the double/instance double and pass the test?
I think, this is not really problem with stubbing, but the general approach. When writing your unit tests for some class, you should stick to functionality of that class and eventually to API it sees. If you're stubbing "internal" out of Interface - it's already to much for specs of Session.
What Session really sees, is Interfaces public hello method, thus Session spec, should not be aware of internal implementation of it (that it is #out.puts "hello"). The only thing you should really focus is that, the hello method has been called. On the other hand, ensuring that the put is called for hello should be described in specs for Interface.
Ufff... That's long introduction/explanation, but how to proceed then? (known as show me the code! too ;)).
Having said, that Session.new should be aware only of Interfaces hello method, it should trust it works properly, and Sessions spec should ensure that the method is called. For that, we'll use a spy. Let's get our hand dirty!
RSpec.describe Session do
let(:fake_interface) { spy("interface") }
let(:session) { Session.new }
before do
allow(Interface).to receive(:new).and_return(fake_interface)
end
describe "#new" do
it "creates an instance of Session" do
expect(session).to be_an_instance_of(Session) # this works now!
end
it "calls Interface's hello method when initialized" do
Session.new
expect(fake_interface).to have_received(:hello)
end
end
end
A test spy is a function that records arguments, return value, the value of this and exception thrown (if any) for all its calls.
This is taken from SinonJS (which is the first result when googling for "what is test spy"), but explanation is accurate.
How does this work?
Session.new
expect(fake_interface).to have_received(:hello)
First of all, we're executing some code, and after that we're asserting that expected things happened. Conceptually, we want to be sure, that during Session.new, the fake_interface have_received(:hello). That's all!
Ok, but I need another test ensuring that Interfaces method is called with specific argument.
Ok, let's test that!
Assuming the Session looks like:
class Session
def initialize
#interface = Interface.new(self)
#interface.hello
#interface.say "Something More!"
end
end
We want to test say:
RSpec.describe Session do
describe "#new" do
# rest of the code
it "calls interface's say_something_more with specific string" do
Session.new
expect(fake_interface).to have_received(:say).with("Something More!")
end
end
end
This one is pretty straightforward.
One more thing - my Interface takes a Session as an argument. How to test that the interface calls sessions method?
Let's take a look at sample implementation:
class Interface
# rest of the code
def do_something_to_session
#session.a_session_method
end
end
class Session
# ...
def another_method
#interface.do_something_to_session
end
def a_session_method
# some fancy code here
end
end
It won't be much surprise, if I say...
RSpec.describe Session do
# rest of the code
describe "#do_something_to_session" do
it "calls the a_session_method" do
Session.new.another_method
expect(fake_interface).to have_received(:do_something_to_session)
end
end
end
You should check, if Sessions another_method called interfaces do_something_to_session method.
If you test like this, you make the tests less fragile to future changes. You might change an implementation of Interface, that it doesn't rely on put any more. When such change is introduced - you have to update the tests of Interface only. Session knows only the proper method is called, but what happens inside? That's the Interfaces job...
Hope that helps! Please, take a look at another example of spy in my other answer.
Good luck!
I've searched a lot and just cannot figure this out although it seems basic. Here's a way simplified example of what I want to do.
Create a simple method that does something but doesn't return anything, such as:
class Test
def test_method(param)
puts param
end
test_method("hello")
end
But in my rspec test I need to pass a different parameter, such as "goodbye" instead of "hello." I know this has to do with stubs and mocks, and I've looking over the documentation but can't figure it out: https://relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/v/3-0/docs/method-stubs
If I do:
#test = Test.new
allow(#test).to_receive(:test_method).with("goodbye")
it tells me to stub out a default value but I can't figure out how to do it correctly.
Error message:
received :test_method with unexpected arguments
expected: ("hello")
got: ("goodbye")
Please stub a default value first if message might be received with other args as well.
I am using rspec 3.0, and calling something like
#test.stub(:test_method)
is not allowed.
How to set a default value that is explained at
and_call_original can configure a default response that can be overriden for specific args
require 'calculator'
RSpec.describe "and_call_original" do
it "can be overriden for specific arguments using #with" do
allow(Calculator).to receive(:add).and_call_original
allow(Calculator).to receive(:add).with(2, 3).and_return(-5)
expect(Calculator.add(2, 2)).to eq(4)
expect(Calculator.add(2, 3)).to eq(-5)
end
end
Source where I came to know about that can be found at https://makandracards.com/makandra/30543-rspec-only-stub-a-method-when-a-particular-argument-is-passed
For your example, since you don't need to test the actual result of test_method, only that puts gets called in it passing in param, I would just test by setting up the expectation and running the method:
class Test
def test_method(param)
puts param
end
end
describe Test do
let(:test) { Test.new }
it 'says hello via expectation' do
expect(test).to receive(:puts).with('hello')
test.test_method('hello')
end
it 'says goodbye via expectation' do
expect(test).to receive(:puts).with('goodbye')
test.test_method('goodbye')
end
end
What it seems you're attempting to do is set up a test spy on the method, but then I think you're setting up the method stub one level too high (on test_method itself instead of the call to puts inside test_method). If you put the stub on the call to puts, your tests should pass:
describe Test do
let(:test) { Test.new }
it 'says hello using a test spy' do
allow(test).to receive(:puts).with('hello')
test.test_method('hello')
expect(test).to have_received(:puts).with('hello')
end
it 'says goodbye using a test spy' do
allow(test).to receive(:puts).with('goodbye')
test.test_method('goodbye')
expect(test).to have_received(:puts).with('goodbye')
end
end
Lets say I have the following module:
module SillyDemo
class Monkey
def screech(sound)
sound
end
end
class Ape < Monkey
def process(sound)
sound
end
def screech(sound)
process(sound)
super
sound
end
end
end
And then the following minitest:
require_relative 'sillydemo'
require "minitest/spec"
require "minitest/autorun"
describe "Ape" do
before do
#ape = Ape.new
#screech = "YEEEEEEE"
end
it "screeches" do
#ape.screech(#screech)
must_send [#ape, :process, #screech]
must_send [#ape, :super, #screech]
end
end
This errors out with:
NoMethodError: undefined method `super' for #<SillyDemo::Ape:0x007feeb10943c0>
(eval):4:in `must_send'
I have also tried:
must_send [#ape, :"SillyDemo::Monkey.screech", #screech]
which errors out with:
NoMethodError: undefined method `SillyDemo::Ape.run' for #<SillyDemo::Ape:0x007fc5a1874e20>
(eval):4:in `must_send'
My question is, how can I use minitest to test a call to super?
In Ruby super is a keyword, not a method. Also, the must_send expectation isn't verifying that the method was called, it just verifies that the return value from the method is truthy.
http://www.ruby-doc.org/stdlib-2.0.0/libdoc/minitest/rdoc/MiniTest/Expectations.html#method-i-must_send
http://www.ruby-doc.org/stdlib-2.0.0/libdoc/minitest/rdoc/MiniTest/Assertions.html#method-i-assert_send
Mocks are usually used to verify that a method was called. However, Minitest::Mock doesn't allow for this type of check very easily by design. Here is how you can do this though.
it "screeches" do
# 1) Create mock
sound_mock = Minitest::Mock.new
sound_mock.expect :process, true, [String]
# 2) Place mock
#ape.instance_exec(sound_mock) do |sound_mock|
#mock = sound_mock
def process sound
#mock.process sound
end
end
# 3) Verify mock was called
#ape.screech(#screech)
sound_mock.verify
end
Pretty ugly, right? This is by design. Sort of like syntactic vinegar. The reason is that this use of mocks isn't very informative. It is checking the implementation of the code. You would like to be able to refactor the code without changing behavior and have the tests continue to pass. However, this test will very likely fail when the implementation is changed. To discourage folks from making this kind of mistake it was decided by the Minitest authors to keep this type of check difficult.
Other mocking libraries such as RR or Mocha make this type of check much easier.
I'm experimenting with RSpec.
Since I don't like mocks, I would like to emulate a console print using a StringIO object.
So, I want to test that the Logger class writes Welcome to the console. To do so, my idea was to override the puts method used inside Logger from within the spec file, so that nothing actually changes when using Logger elsewhere.
Here's some code:
describe Logger do
Logger.class_eval do
def puts(*args)
???.puts(*args)
end
end
it 'says "Welcome"' do
end
Doing this way, I need to share some StringIO object (which would go where the question marks are now) between the Logger class and the test class.
I found out that when I'm inside RSpec tests, self is an instance of Class. What I thought initially was to do something like this:
Class.class_eval do
attr_accessor :my_io
#my_io = StringIO.new
end
and then replace ??? with Class.my_io.
When I do this, a thousand bells ring in my head telling me it's not a clean way to do this.
What can I do?
PS: I still don't get this:
a = StringIO.new
a.print('a')
a.string # => "a"
a.read # => "" ??? WHY???
a.readlines # => [] ???
Still: StringIO.new('hello').readlines # => ["hello"]
To respond to your last concern, StringIO simulates file behavior. When you write/print to it, the input cursor is positioned after the last thing you wrote. If you write something and want to read it back, you need to reposition yourself (e.g. with rewind, seek, etc.), per http://ruby-doc.org/stdlib-1.9.3/libdoc/stringio/rdoc/StringIO.html
In contrast, StringIO.new('hello') establishes hello as the initial contents of the string while leaving in the position at 0. In any event, the string method just returns the contents, independent of position.
It's not clear why you have an issue with the test double mechanism in RSpec.
That said, your approach for sharing a method works, although:
The fact that self is an anonymous class within RSpec's describe is not really relevant
Instead of using an instance method of Class, you can define your own class and associated class method and "share" that instead, as in the following:
class Foo
def self.bar(arg)
puts(arg)
end
end
describe "Sharing stringio" do
Foo.class_eval do
def self.puts(*args)
MyStringIO.my_io.print(*args)
end
end
class MyStringIO
#my_io = StringIO.new
def self.my_io ; #my_io ; end
end
it 'says "Welcome"' do
Foo.bar("Welcome")
expect(MyStringIO.my_io.string).to eql "Welcome"
end
end
Logger already allows the output device to be specified on construction, so you can easily pass in your StringIO directly without having to redefine anything:
require 'logger'
describe Logger do
let(:my_io) { StringIO.new }
let(:log) { Logger.new(my_io) }
it 'says welcome' do
log.error('Welcome')
expect(my_io.string).to include('ERROR -- : Welcome')
end
end
As other posters have mentioned, it's unclear whether you're intending to test Logger or some code that uses it. In the case of the latter, consider injecting the logger into the client code.
The answers to this SO question also show several ways to share a common Logger between clients.
How can I do something like:
it { should have_constant(:FIXED_LIST) }
In my model (active record) I have FIXED_LIST = 'A String'
It's not a db attribute or a method and I haven't been able to use responds_to or has_attribute to test for it (they fail). What can I use the to check for it. - btw I have the shoulda-matchers installed.
Based on David Chelimsky's answer I've got this to work by slightly modifying his code.
In a file spec/support/utilities.rb (or some other in spec/support) you can put:
RSpec::Matchers.define :have_constant do |const|
match do |owner|
owner.const_defined?(const)
end
end
Note the use of "RSpec::Matchers.define" in stead of "matchers"
This allows to test for constants in your specs, like:
it "should have a fixed list constant" do
YourModel.should have_constant(:FIXED_LIST)
end
Note the use of "have_constant" in stead of "have_const"
It reads a little silly, but:
describe MyClass do
it { should be_const_defined(:VERSION) }
end
The reason is that Rspec has "magic" matchers for methods starting with be_ and have_. For example, it { should have_green_pants } would assert that the has_green_pants? method on the subject returns true.
In the same fashion, an example such as it { should be_happy } would assert that the happy? method on the subject returns true.
So, the example it { should be_const_defined(:VERSION) } asserts that const_defined?(:VERSION) returns true.
If you want to say have_constant you can define a custom matcher for it:
matcher :have_constant do |const|
match do |owner|
owner.const_defined?(const)
end
end
MyClass.should have_const(:CONST)
If you're trying to use the one-liner syntax, you'll need to make sure the subject is a class (not an instance) or check for it in the matcher:
matcher :have_constant do |const|
match do |owner|
(owner.is_a?(Class) ? owner : owner.class).const_defined?(const)
end
end
See http://rubydoc.info/gems/rspec-expectations/RSpec/Matchers for more info on custom matchers.
HTH,
David
Another option to simply make sure the constant is defined – not worrying about what it's defined with:
it 'has a WHATEVER constant' do
expect(SomeClass::WHATEVER).not_to be_nil
end
A warning to anyone trying to test that constants are defined: If your code references an undefined constant while defining a class, then your specs will crash before they get to your test.
This can lead you to believe that
expect { FOO }.to_not raise_error
is failing to catch the NameError, because you'll get a big stack trace, instead of a nice "expected not to raise error, but raised NameError."
Amidst the huge stack trace, it can be difficult to notice that your test is actually crashing on line 1: requre "spec/spec_helper" because your entire application is failing to load before it gets to your actual test.
This can happen if you have dynamically defined constants, such as is done by ActiveHash::Enum, and you then use them in the definition of another constant. Don't bother testing that they exist, every spec in your app will crash if one of them fails to be defined.
You could use
defined? YOUR_MODEL::FIXED_LIST
In RSpec 2, I was able to get this to work in one line as follows:
it { subject.class.should be_const_defined(:MY_CONST) }
That is, check against the class, instead of the instance.
In My model
class Role < ActiveRecord::Base
ROLE_ADMIN = "Administrador"
end
In My rspec
RSpec.describe Role, type: :model do
let(:fake_class) { Class.new }
describe "set constants" do
before { stub_const("#{described_class}", fake_class) }
it { expect(described_class::ROLE_ADMIN).to eq("Administrador") }
end
end
For ruby 2.1.5 and rspec 3.5.0 I am able to test that constant SEARCH_CHARS_TO_IGNORE is defined in the class DiffAlertsDatatable as follows:
expect(DiffAlertsDatatable.const_defined?(:SEARCH_CHARS_TO_IGNORE)).to eq(true)