Using specific VCR cassette based on request - ruby

Situation: testing a rails application using Rspec, FactoryGirl and VCR.
Every time a User is created, an associated Stripe customer is created through Stripe's API. While testing, it doesn't really makes sense to add a VCR.use_cassette or describe "...", vcr: {cassette_name: 'stripe-customer'} do ... to every spec where User creation is involved. My actual solution is the following:
RSpec.configure do |config|
config.around do |example|
VCR.use_cassette('stripe-customer') do |cassette|
example.run
end
end
end
But this isn't sustainable because the same cassette will be used for every http request, which of course is very bad.
Question: How can I use specific fixtures (cassettes) based on individual request, without specifying the cassette for every spec?
I have something like this in mind, pseudo-code:
stub_request(:post, "api.stripe.com/customers").with(File.read("cassettes/stripe-customer"))
Relevant pieces of code (as a gist):
# user_observer.rb
class UserObserver < ActiveRecord::Observer
def after_create(user)
user.create_profile!
begin
customer = Stripe::Customer.create(
email: user.email,
plan: 'default'
)
user.stripe_customer_id = customer.id
user.save!
rescue Stripe::InvalidRequestError => e
raise e
end
end
end
# vcr.rb
require 'vcr'
VCR.configure do |config|
config.default_cassette_options = { record: :once, re_record_interval: 1.day }
config.cassette_library_dir = 'spec/fixtures/cassettes'
config.hook_into :webmock
config.configure_rspec_metadata!
end
# user_spec.rb
describe :InstanceMethods do
let(:user) { FactoryGirl.create(:user) }
describe "#flexible_name" do
it "returns the name when name is specified" do
user.profile.first_name = "Foo"
user.profile.last_name = "Bar"
user.flexible_name.should eq("Foo Bar")
end
end
end
Edit
I ended doing something like this:
VCR.configure do |vcr|
vcr.around_http_request do |request|
if request.uri =~ /api.stripe.com/
uri = URI(request.uri)
name = "#{[uri.host, uri.path, request.method].join('/')}"
VCR.use_cassette(name, &request)
elsif request.uri =~ /twitter.com/
VCR.use_cassette('twitter', &request)
else
end
end
end

VCR 2.x includes a feature specifically to support use cases like these:
https://relishapp.com/vcr/vcr/v/2-4-0/docs/hooks/before-http-request-hook!
https://relishapp.com/vcr/vcr/v/2-4-0/docs/hooks/after-http-request-hook!
https://relishapp.com/vcr/vcr/v/2-4-0/docs/hooks/around-http-request-hook!
VCR.configure do |vcr|
vcr.around_http_request(lambda { |req| req.uri =~ /api.stripe.com/ }) do |request|
VCR.use_cassette(request.uri, &request)
end
end

IMO, libraries like this should provided you with a mock class, but w/e.
You can do your pseudocode example already with Webmock, which is the default internet mocking library that VCR uses.
body = YAML.load(File.read 'cassettes/stripe-customer.yml')['http_interactions'][0]['response']['body']['string']
stub_request(:post, "api.stripe.com/customers").to_return(:body => body)
You could put that in a before block that only runs on a certain tag, then tag the requests that make API calls.
In their tests, they override the methods that delegate to RestClient (link). You could do this as well, take a look at their test suite to see how they use it, in particular their use of test_response. I think this is a terribly hacky way of doing things, and would feel really uncomfortable with it (note that I'm in the minority with this discomfort) but it should work for now (it has the potential to break without you knowing until runtime). If I were to do this, I'd want to build out real objects for the two mocks (the one mocking rest-client, and the other mocking the rest-client response).

The whole point (mostly anyway) of VCR to just to replay the response of a previous request. If you are in there picking and choosing what response goes back to what request, you are quote/unquote doing-it-wrong.
Like Joshua already said, you should use Webmock for something like this. That's what VCR is uing behind the scenes anyway.

Related

Ruby mixins looking for a best practice

I'm writing Ruby Gem where I have Connection module for Faraday configuration
module Example
module Connection
private
def connection
Faraday.new(url: 'http://localhost:3000/api') do |conn|
conn.request :url_encoded # form-encode POST params
conn.response :logger # log requests to STDOUT
conn.adapter Faraday.default_adapter # make requests with Net::HTTP
conn.use Faraday::Response::ParseJson
conn.use FaradayMiddleware::RaiseHttpException
end
end
end
end
Second module which makes API requests looks like this:
module Example
module Request
include Connection
def get(uri)
connection.get(uri).body
end
def post(url, attributes)
response = connection.post(url) do |request|
request.body = attributes.to_json
end
end
def self.extended(base)
base.include(InstanceMethods)
end
module InstanceMethods
include Connection
def put(url, attributes)
response = connection.put(url) do |request|
request.body = attributes.to_json
end
end
end
end
end
Class Cusomer where I use Request looks like this:
module Example
class Customer
extend Request
attr_accessor :id, :name, :age
def initialize(attrs)
attrs.each do |key, value|
instance_variable_set("##{key}", value)
end
end
def self.all
customers = get('v1/customer')
customers.map { |cust| new cust }
end
def save
params = {
id: self.id,
age: self.age
name: self.name,
}
put("v1/customers/#{self.id}", params)
end
end
end
So here you see in Customer#all class method I'm calling Request#get method which is available because I extended Request in Customer. then I'm using self.extended method in Request module to be make Request#put available in Customer class, so I have question is this good approach to use mixins like this, or do you have any suggestion?
Mixins are a strange beast. Best practices vary depending on who you talk to. As far as reuse goes, you've achieved that here with mixins, and you have a nice separation of concerns.
However, mixins are a form of inheritance (you can take a peek at #ancestors). I would challenge you saying that you shouldn't use inheritance here because a Customer doesn't have an "is-a" relationship with Connection. I would recommend you use composition instead (e.g. pass in Connection/Request) as it makes more sense to me in this case and has stronger encapsulation.
One guideline for writing mixins is to make everything end in "-able", so you would have Enumerable, Sortable, Runnable, Callable, etc. In this sense, mixins are generic extensions that provide some sort of helpers that are depending on a very specific interface (e.g. Enumerable depends on the class to implement #each).
You could also use mixins for cross-cutting concerns. For example, we've used mixins in the past in our background jobs so that we could add logging for example without having to touch the source code of the class. In this case, if a new job wants logging, then they just mixin the concern which is coupled to the framework and will inject itself properly.
My general rule of thumb is don't use them if you don't have to. They make understanding the code a lot more complicated in most cases
EDIT: Adding an example of composition. In order to maintain the interface you have above you'd need to have some sort of global connection state, so it may not make sense. Here's an alternative that uses composition
class CustomerConnection
# CustomerConnection is composed of a Connection and retains isolation
# of responsibilities. It also uses constructor injection (e.g. takes
# its dependencies in the constructor) which means easy testing.
def initialize(connection)
#connection = connection
end
def all_customers
#connection.get('v1/customers').map { |res| Customer.new(res) }
end
end
connection = Connection.new
CustomerConnection.new(connection).all_customers

Rspec: Difference between allow and allow_any_instance_of

I have a simple MySQL wrapper class which will run a query and return results.
class Rsql
def initialize(db)
#client = Mysql2::Client
#db = db
end
def execute_query()
client = #client.new(#db)
client.query("select 1")
end
end
I want to test some stuff involving the results of the query, but I don't want to actually connect to a database to get the results. I tried this test, but it doesn't work:
RSpec.describe Rsql do
it "does it" do
mock_database = double
rsql = Rsql.new(mock_database)
mock_mysql_client = double
allow(mock_mysql_client).to receive(:query).and_return({"1" => 1})
allow_any_instance_of(Mysql2::Client).to receive(:new).and_return(mock_mysql_client)
expect(rsql.execute_query).to eq({"1" => 1})
end
end
Replacing allow_any_instance_of() with allow() works. I was under the impression that allow_any_instance_of() was some kind of a global "pretend this class behaves in this way across the entire program" whereas allow() is for specific instances of a class.
Can someone explain this behavior to me? I'm new to Rspec, so I apologize if this answer is blatantly obvious. I tried searching for the answer, but I couldn't come up with the right search string to find one. Maybe I don't know enough to know when I've found it.
As of RSpec 3.3 , any_instance is deprecated and not recommended to use in your tests.
From the docs:
any_instance is the old way to stub or mock any instance of a class
but carries the baggage of a global monkey patch on all classes. Note
that we generally recommend against using this feature.
You should only need to use allow(some_obj) going forward and the documentation has some great examples (see here).
Such as:
RSpec.describe "receive_messages" do
it "configures return values for the provided messages" do
dbl = double("Some Collaborator")
allow(dbl).to receive_messages(:foo => 2, :bar => 3)
expect(dbl.foo).to eq(2)
expect(dbl.bar).to eq(3)
end
end
Edit, if you really want to use any_instance, do so like this:
(Mysql2::Client).allow_any_instance.to receive(:something)
Edit2, your exact stub doesn't work because you're not stubbing an instance, you're stubbing before the object is initialized. In that case you would do allow(Mysql2::Client).to receive(:new).
this Rsql class seems a service
class Rsql
def initialize(db)
#client = Mysql2::Client
#db = db
end
def execute_query()
client = #client.new(#db)
client.query("select 1")
end
end
lets create a test for it, now we should to test this function execute_query with subject ()
and to create clients in db we can use let! like this
let!(:client1) do
FactoryBot.create(...
with this we should not use double or something
require 'rails_helper'
RSpec.describe RsqlTest do
subject(:clients) do
Rsql.execute_query()
end
context 'select' do
let!(:client1) do
FactoryBot.create(...
end
it 'should return records' do
expect(clients).to include(client1)
end
end
end

How would I use VCR (with WebMock) in this scenario?

I'm developing a DSL for building API wrappers, named Hendrix. I am having problems with the testing of the DSL. As it is a API wrapper, it needs to interact with external services. I am not sure how to approach this in terms of testing. I'm using RSpec and tried configuring VCR with WebMock, but no luck. How am I supposed to test this particular scenario if I don't have direct access to what request is being made?
This is my spec_helper.rb:
$VERBOSE = nil
require 'simplecov'
require 'coveralls'
SimpleCov.formatter = SimpleCov::Formatter::MultiFormatter[
SimpleCov::Formatter::HTMLFormatter,
Coveralls::SimpleCov::Formatter
]
SimpleCov.start { add_filter '/spec/' }
lib = File.expand_path('../lib', __FILE__)
$LOAD_PATH.unshift(lib) unless $LOAD_PATH.include?(lib)
require 'hendrix'
require 'vcr'
VCR.configure do |c|
c.cassette_library_dir = 'spec/cassettes'
c.hook_into :webmock
end
RSpec.configure do |config|
config.treat_symbols_as_metadata_keys_with_true_values = true
config.run_all_when_everything_filtered = true
config.filter_run :focus
config.order = 'random'
config.extend VCR::RSpec::Macros
end
The project is in its early stages (working towards version 0.1.0 at the moment). The syntax of the DSL is as follows:
require 'hendrix'
Hendrix.build 'Jimi' do
base 'https://api.github.com'
client :issues do
action :issue, '/repos/:owner/:repo/issues/:number'
end
end
Jimi.issue('rafalchmiel', 'hendrix', 1)
# => {"url"=>"https://api.github.com/repos/rafalchmiel/hendrix/issues/1",
# "labels_url"=> ...
Jimi.issue('rafalchmiel', 'hendrix', 1).title
# => "Implement parameters in actions"
In most specs, I'm testing what the methods from the master module (in this case Jimi.issue etc) return and whether it is in a Hashie::Mash format. How would I test this? I don't know where to start.
For integration tests, I usually stub the endpoint with webmock directly, without trying to record an actual request. This means you can control the response and the expectation in the same place. You can place expectations on whether your library parses the response correctly and you can write tests that verify that the request has been made correctly. Go through each of the features of your gem to get a list of features. Here's an example:
require "webmock/rspec"
describe "parsing results" do
let(:url) { "http://..." }
it "parses results into nice methods" do
stub_request(:get, url)
.to_return(
body: { title: "implement" }.to_json,
headers: { content_type: "application/json" },
)
perform_request
expect(response.title).to eq "implement"
end
it "sends the user agent header correctly" do
stub_request(:get, url)
perform_request
expect(a_request(:get, url).with(
headers: { user_agent: "hendrix" }
)).to have_been_made.once
end
it "interpolates values in URLs"
it "supports DELETE requests"
it "supports HTTP Basic"
def perform_request
# ...
end
end
Try not to record real requests: it's hard to control the right circumstances with real web servers, especially if you're not the one who wrote the specs. Especially when you write a general purpose library like this. VCR is nice if you want to access one particular server and your code really depends on that one server.
Also don't check on types. I see that quite a lot in your gem right now. Nobody cares if you return a Hashie::Mash object. As my first spec shows, you just want to be able to access the attributes cleanly.

Working around the need for partial mocks

From time to time I run into the situation that I want to use partial mocks of class methods in my tests. Currently, I'm working with minitest which does not support this (probably because it's not a good idea in the first place...).
An example:
class ImportRunner
def self.run *ids
ids.each { |id| ItemImporter.new(id).import }
end
end
class ItemImporter
def initialize id
#id = id
end
def import
do_this
do_that
end
private
def do_this
# do something with fetched_data
end
def do_that
# do something with fetched_data
end
def fetched_data
#fetched_data ||= DataFetcher.get #id
end
end
I want to test the ImportRunner.run method in isolation (mainly because ItemImporter#import is slow/expensive). In rspec I would have written a test like this:
it 'should do an import for each id' do
first_importer = mock
second_importer = mock
ItemImporter.should_receive(:new).with(123).and_return(first_importer)
first_importer.should_receive(:import).once
ItemImporter.should_receive(:new).with(456).and_return(second_importer)
second_importer.should_receive(:import).once
ImportRunner.run 123, 456
end
First part of the question: Is it possible to do something similar in minitest?
Second part of the question: Is object collaboration in the form
collaborator = SomeCollaborator.new a_param
collaborator.do_work
bad design? If so, how would you change it?
What you are asking for is almost possible in straight Minitest. Minitest::Mock doesn't support partial mocking, so we attempt to do this by stubbing ItemImporter's new method and returning a lambda that calls a mock that returns mocks instead. (Mocks within a mock: Mockception)
def test_imports_for_each_id
# Set up mock objects
item_importer = MiniTest::Mock.new
first_importer = MiniTest::Mock.new
second_importer = MiniTest::Mock.new
# Set up expectations of calls
item_importer.expect :new, first_importer, [123]
item_importer.expect :new, second_importer, [456]
first_importer.expect :import, nil
second_importer.expect :import, nil
# Run the import
ItemImporter.stub :new, lambda { |id| item_importer.new id } do
ImportRunner.run 123, 456
end
# Verify expectations were met
# item_importer.verify
first_importer.verify
second_importer.verify
end
This will work except for calling item_importer.verify. Because that mock will return other mocks, the process of verifying all the expectations were met will call additional methods on the first_importer and second_importer mocks, causing them to raise. So while you can get close, you can't replicate your rspec code exactly. To do that you will have to use a different mocking library that supports partial mocks like RR.
If that code looks ugly to you, don't worry, it is. But that isn't the fault of Minitest, its the fault of conflicting responsibilities within the test. Like you said, this probably isn't a good idea. I don't know what this test is supposed to prove. It looks to be specifying the implementation of your code, but it isn't really communicating the expected behavior. This is what some folks call "over-mocked".
Mocks and stubs are important and useful tools in the hands of a developer, but it’s easy to get carried away. Besides lending a false sense of security, over-mocked tests can also be brittle and noisy. - Rails AntiPatterns
I would rethink what you are trying to accomplish with this test. Minitest is helping you out here by making the design choice that ugly things should look ugly.
You could use the Mocha gem. I am also using MiniTest in most of my tests, and using Mocha to mock and stub methods.

Calling Sinatra from within Sinatra

I have a Sinatra based REST service app and I would like to call one of the resources from within one of the routes, effectively composing one resource from another. E.g.
get '/someresource' do
otherresource = get '/otherresource'
# do something with otherresource, return a new resource
end
get '/otherresource' do
# etc.
end
A redirect will not work since I need to do some processing on the second resource and create a new one from it. Obviously I could a) use RestClient or some other client framework or b) structure my code so all of the logic for otherresource is in a method and just call that, however, it feels like it would be much cleaner if I could just re-use my resources from within Sinatra using their DSL.
Another option (I know this isn't answering your actual question) is to put your common code (even the template render) within a helper method, for example:
helpers do
def common_code( layout = true )
#title = 'common'
erb :common, :layout => layout
end
end
get '/foo' do
#subtitle = 'foo'
common_code
end
get '/bar' do
#subtitle = 'bar'
common_code
end
get '/baz' do
#subtitle = 'baz'
#common_snippet = common_code( false )
erb :large_page_with_common_snippet_injected
end
Sinatra's documentation covers this - essentially you use the underlying rack interface's call method:
http://www.sinatrarb.com/intro.html#Triggering%20Another%20Route
Triggering Another Route
Sometimes pass is not what you want, instead
you would like to get the result of calling another route. Simply use
call to achieve this:
get '/foo' do
status, headers, body = call env.merge("PATH_INFO" => '/bar')
[status, headers, body.map(&:upcase)]
end
get '/bar' do
"bar"
end
I was able to hack something up by making a quick and dirty rack request and calling the Sinatra (a rack app) application directly. It's not pretty, but it works. Note that it would probably be better to extract the code that generates this resource into a helper method instead of doing something like this. But it is possible, and there might be better, cleaner ways of doing it than this.
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
require 'rubygems'
require 'stringio'
require 'sinatra'
get '/someresource' do
resource = self.call(
'REQUEST_METHOD' => 'GET',
'PATH_INFO' => '/otherresource',
'rack.input' => StringIO.new
)[2].join('')
resource.upcase
end
get '/otherresource' do
"test"
end
If you want to know more about what's going on behind the scenes, I've written a few articles on the basics of Rack you can read. There is What is Rack? and Using Rack.
This may or may not apply in your case, but when I’ve needed to create routes like this, I usually try something along these lines:
%w(main other).each do |uri|
get "/#{uri}" do
#res = "hello"
#res.upcase! if uri == "other"
#res
end
end
Building on AboutRuby's answer, I needed to support fetching static files in lib/public as well as query paramters and cookies (for maintaining authenticated sessions.) I also chose to raise exceptions on non-200 responses (and handle them in the calling functions).
If you trace Sinatra's self.call method in sinatra/base.rb, it takes an env parameter and builds a Rack::Request with it, so you can dig in there to see what parameters are supported.
I don't recall all the conditions of the return statements (I think there were some Ruby 2 changes), so feel free to tune to your requirements.
Here's the function I'm using:
def get_route url
fn = File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__), 'public'+url)
return File.read(fn) if (File.exist?fn)
base_url, query = url.split('?')
begin
result = self.call('REQUEST_METHOD' => 'GET',
'PATH_INFO' => base_url,
'QUERY_STRING' => query,
'rack.input' => StringIO.new,
'HTTP_COOKIE' => #env['HTTP_COOKIE'] # Pass auth credentials
)
rescue Exception=>e
puts "Exception when fetching self route: #{url}"
raise e
end
raise "Error when fetching self route: #{url}" unless result[0]==200 # status
return File.read(result[2].path) if result[2].is_a? Rack::File
return result[2].join('') rescue result[2].to_json
end

Resources