How can a create the following RSpec matcher?
foo.bars.should incude_at_least_one {|bar| bar.id == 42 }
Let me know if I'm reinventing the wheel, but I'm also curious to know how to create a custom matcher that takes a block. Some of the built in matchers do it, so it's possible. I tried this:
RSpec::Matchers.define :incude_at_least_one do |expected|
match do |actual|
actual.each do |item|
return true if yield(item)
end
false
end
end
I aslo tried passing &block at both leves. I'm missing something simple.
I started with the code from Neil Slater, and got it to work:
class IncludeAtLeastOne
def initialize(&block)
#block = block
end
def matches?(actual)
#actual = actual
#actual.any? {|item| #block.call(item) }
end
def failure_message_for_should
"expected #{#actual.inspect} to include at least one matching item, but it did not"
end
def failure_message_for_should_not
"expected #{#actual.inspect} not to include at least one, but it did"
end
end
def include_at_least_one(&block)
IncludeAtLeastOne.new &block
end
There has been discussion about adding such a matcher to rspec. I am not sure about your block question but you could represent this test in the not as elegant looking:
foo.bars.any?{|bar| bar.id == 42}.should be_true
Probably easier than making a custom matcher and should be readable if your test is something like it "should include at least one foo matching the id"
The RSpec DSL won't do it, but you could do something like this:
class IncludeAtLeastOne
def matches?(target)
#target = target
#target.any? do |item|
yield( item )
end
end
def failure_message_for_should
"expected #{#target.inspect} to include at least one thing"
end
def failure_message_for_should_not
"expected #{#target.inspect} not to include at least one"
end
end
def include_at_least_one
IncludeAtLeastOne.new
end
describe "foos" do
it "should contain something interesting" do
[1,2,3].should include_at_least_one { |x| x == 1 }
end
end
Related
I am building a DSL and have this module
module EDAApiBuilder
module Client
attr_accessor :api_client, :endpoint, :url
def api_client(api_name)
#apis ||= {}
raise ArgumentError.new('API name already exists.') if #apis.has_key?(api_name)
#api_client = api_name
#apis[#api_client] = {}
yield(self) if block_given?
end
def fetch_client(api_name)
#apis[api_name]
end
def endpoint(endpoint_name)
raise ArgumentError.new("Endpoint #{endpoint_name} already exists for #{#api_client} API client.") if fetch_client(#api_client).has_key?(endpoint_name)
#endpoint = endpoint_name
#apis[#api_client][#endpoint] = {}
yield(self) if block_given?
end
def url=(endpoint_url)
fetch_client(#api_client)[#endpoint]['url'] = endpoint_url
end
end
end
so that I have tests like
context 'errors' do
it 'raises an ArgumentError when trying to create an already existent API client' do
expect {
obj = MixinTester.new
obj.api_client('google')
obj.api_client('google')
}.to raise_error(ArgumentError,'API name already exists.')
end
it 'raises an ArgumentError when trying to create a repeated endpoint for the same API client' do
expect {
obj = MixinTester.new
obj.api_client('google') do |apic|
apic.endpoint('test1')
apic.endpoint('test1')
end
}.to raise_error(ArgumentError,"Endpoint test1 already exists for google API client.")
end
end
I would rather have #api_clientwritten as an assignment block
def api_client=(api_name)
so that I could write
obj = MixinTester.new
obj.api_client = 'google' do |apic| # <=== Notice the difference here
apic.endpoint('test1')
apic.endpoint('test1')
end
because I think this notation (with assignment) is more meaningful. But then, when I run my tests this way I just get an error saying that the keyworkd_do is unexpected in this case.
It seems to me that the definition of an assignment block is syntactic sugar which won't contemplate blocks.
Is this correct? Does anyone have some information about this?
By the way: MixinTester is just a class for testing, defined in my spec/spec_helper.rb as
class MixinTester
include EDAApiBuilder::Client
end
SyntaxError
It seems to me that the definition of an assignment [method] is syntactic
sugar which won't contemplate blocks.
It seems you're right. It looks like no method with = can accept a block, even with the normal method call and no syntactic sugar :
class MixinTester
def name=(name,&block)
end
def set_name(name, &block)
end
end
obj = MixinTester.new
obj.set_name('test') do |x|
puts x
end
obj.name=('test') do |x| # <- syntax error, unexpected keyword_do, expecting end-of-input
puts x
end
Alternative
Hash parameter
An alternative could be written with a Hash :
class MixinTester
def api(params, &block)
block.call(params)
end
end
obj = MixinTester.new
obj.api client: 'google' do |apic|
puts apic
end
#=> {:client=>"google"}
You could adjust the method name and hash parameters to taste.
Parameter with block
If the block belongs to the method parameter, and not the setter method, the syntax is accepted :
def google(&block)
puts "Instantiate Google API"
block.call("custom apic object")
end
class MixinTester
attr_writer :api_client
end
obj = MixinTester.new
obj.api_client = google do |apic|
puts apic
end
# =>
# Instantiate Google API
# custom apic object
It looks weird, but it's pretty close to what you wanted to achieve.
I have next scenario:
module Module
class CommandPattern
def initialize(value)
command = []
#var = value['something']
#abc = value['abc']
#command << value
end
def add(value)
#command << value
end
def get_command
#command
end
end
end
module Module
class Implementator
def initialize(value)
#value = value
end
def method_to_test(argument)
var = "command1"
cmd = CommandPattern.new(var)
var2 = "command2"
cmd.add(var2)
var3 = argument
cmd.add(var3)
commands = var + var2 + var3
commands
end
end
end
So, when I'm testing Module::B.method_I_want_to_test, what would be the best practice to mock "var = A.new(some_stuff)"? Beside refactoring and moving this line into separate method, is there some nice way to do this?
Little bit of background on this question - this style (Module::ClassA and Module::ClassB) - I'm using http://naildrivin5.com/gli/ and reason for this approach is that class A is actually implementing Command Pattern.
So issue I was apparently getting was due to wrong way of trying to write specs.
What I did before was (on the way how #spickermann advised):
RSpec.describe Module::Implementator do
describe "#method_to_test" do
let(:command_argument) { "command" }
let(:cmnd) { double(CommandPattern, :new => command_argument, :add => command_argument)}
subject(:method_to_test) do
Implementator.new("value").method_to_test("dejan")
end
before do
allow(CommandPattern).to receive(:new).with(any_args).and_return(cmnd)
allow(CommandPattern).to receive(:add).with(any_args).and_return(cmnd)
end
it 'does something' do
expect{ method_to_test }.not_to raise_error
end
it 'does something else' do
result = method_to_test
expect(result).to eq("command1command2dejan")
end
end
end
Issue was apparently in testing Module::Implementator, didn't realise I can put module around my RSpec.describe block and solve my first issue:
module Module
RSpec.describe Implementator do
describe "#method_to_test" do
let(:command_argument) { "command" }
let(:cmnd) { double(CommandPattern, :new => command_argument, :add => command_argument)}
subject(:method_to_test) do
Implementator.new("value").method_to_test("dejan")
end
before do
allow(CommandPattern).to receive(:new).with(any_args).and_return(cmnd)
allow(CommandPattern).to receive(:add).with(any_args).and_return(cmnd)
end
it 'does something' do
expect{ method_to_test }.not_to raise_error
end
it 'does something else' do
result = method_to_test
expect(result).to eq("command1command2dejan")
end
end
end
end
Another issue I had was global variable keeping YAML structure, which I missed to see and declare in spec_helper.rb
However, thank's to #spickermann's advices, issue is solved.
I would start with something like this:
describe '#method_I_want_to_test' do
let(:something) { # whatever something needs to be }
let(:a) { double(A, # methods you need from a) }
subject(:method_I_want_to_test) do
B.new(something).method_I_want_to_test
end
before do
allow(A).to receive(:new).with(something).and_return(a)
end
it 'does what I expect' do
expect(method_I_want_to_test).to eq(# what do_semething_else returns)
end
end
The interesting part is the before block that stubs the new method on A. It returns always the double defined in the let(:a) line instead of a real instance of A
I'm new to writing custom matchers, and most of the examples cover a very minimal set up. What's the proper way to write a matcher that extends a function from a module that has an argument. Do I need to give the actual block the function argument input? Thanks.
# My Example:
RSpec::Matchers.define :total do |expected|
match do |input, actual|
actual.extend(Statistics).sample(input) == expected
end
end
# Before:
describe Statistics do
it 'should not be empty' do
expect(Statistics.sample(input)).not_to be_empty
end
end
Well it depends on what you want to test. If you merely want to test that the module includes a method, maybe something like this:
module Statistics
def sample
end
end
class Test
end
RSpec::Matchers.define :extend_with do |method_name|
match do |klass|
klass.extend(Statistics).respond_to?(method_name)
end
end
describe Statistics do
subject { Test.new }
it { should extend_with(:sample) }
end
If you want to test the value returned, you can add that as an argument, or chain the matcher:
module Statistics
def sample(input)
41 + input
end
end
class Test
end
RSpec::Matchers.define :extend_with do |method_name, input|
match do |klass|
#klass = klass
#klass.extend(Statistics).respond_to?(method_name)
end
chain :returning_value do |value|
#klass.extend(Statistics).__send__(method_name, input) == value
end
end
describe Statistics do
subject { Test.new }
it { should extend_with(:sample) }
it { should extend_with(:sample, 2).returning_value(43) }
end
The matcher DSL is quite flexible. You don't have to be hung up on naming your arguments 'actual' and 'expected' like in the docs -- write the specs so they tell the story of your code.
I'm writing a module in Ruby 1.9.2 that defines several methods. When any of these methods is called, I want each of them to execute a certain statement first.
module MyModule
def go_forth
a re-used statement
# code particular to this method follows ...
end
def and_multiply
a re-used statement
# then something completely different ...
end
end
But I want to avoid putting that a re-used statement code explicitly in every single method. Is there a way to do so?
(If it matters, a re-used statement will have each method, when called, print its own name. It will do so via some variant of puts __method__.)
Like this:
module M
def self.before(*names)
names.each do |name|
m = instance_method(name)
define_method(name) do |*args, &block|
yield
m.bind(self).(*args, &block)
end
end
end
end
module M
def hello
puts "yo"
end
def bye
puts "bum"
end
before(*instance_methods) { puts "start" }
end
class C
include M
end
C.new.bye #=> "start" "bum"
C.new.hello #=> "start" "yo"
This is exactly what aspector is created for.
With aspector you don't need to write the boilerplate metaprogramming code. You can even go one step further to extract the common logic into a separate aspect class and test it independently.
require 'aspector'
module MyModule
aspector do
before :go_forth, :add_multiply do
...
end
end
def go_forth
# code particular to this method follows ...
end
def and_multiply
# then something completely different ...
end
end
You can implement it with method_missing through proxy Module, like this:
module MyModule
module MyRealModule
def self.go_forth
puts "it works!"
# code particular to this method follows ...
end
def self.and_multiply
puts "it works!"
# then something completely different ...
end
end
def self.method_missing(m, *args, &block)
reused_statement
if MyModule::MyRealModule.methods.include?( m.to_s )
MyModule::MyRealModule.send(m)
else
super
end
end
def self.reused_statement
puts "reused statement"
end
end
MyModule.go_forth
#=> it works!
MyModule.stop_forth
#=> NoMethodError...
You can do this by metaprogramming technique, here's an example:
module YourModule
def included(mod)
def mod.method_added(name)
return if #added
#added = true
original_method = "original #{name}"
alias_method original_method, name
define_method(name) do |*args|
reused_statement
result = send original_method, *args
puts "The method #{name} called!"
result
end
#added = false
end
end
def reused_statement
end
end
module MyModule
include YourModule
def go_forth
end
def and_multiply
end
end
works only in ruby 1.9 and higher
UPDATE: and also can't use block, i.e. no yield in instance methods
I dunno, why I was downvoted - but a proper AOP framework is better than meta-programming hackery. And thats what OP was trying to achieve.
http://debasishg.blogspot.com/2006/06/does-ruby-need-aop.html
Another Solution could be:
module Aop
def self.included(base)
base.extend(ClassMethods)
end
module ClassMethods
def before_filter(method_name, options = {})
aop_methods = Array(options[:only]).compact
return if aop_methods.empty?
aop_methods.each do |m|
alias_method "#{m}_old", m
class_eval <<-RUBY,__FILE__,__LINE__ + 1
def #{m}
#{method_name}
#{m}_old
end
RUBY
end
end
end
end
module Bar
def hello
puts "Running hello world"
end
end
class Foo
include Bar
def find_hello
puts "Running find hello"
end
include Aop
before_filter :find_hello, :only => :hello
end
a = Foo.new()
a.hello()
It is possible with meta-programming.
Another alternative is Aquarium. Aquarium is a framework that implements Aspect-Oriented Programming (AOP) for Ruby. AOP allow you to implement functionality across normal object and method boundaries. Your use case, applying a pre-action on every method, is a basic task of AOP.
I have a class that I want to compare to both strings and symbols in a case statement, so I thought that I just override the ===() method for my class and all would be gold. However my ===() method never gets called during the case statement. Any ideas?
Here is some example code, and what happens in a irb session:
class A
def initialize(x)
#x=x #note this isn't even required for this example
end
def ===(other)
puts "in ==="
return true
end
end
irb(main):010:0> a=A.new("hi")
=> #
irb(main):011:0> case a
irb(main):012:1> when "hi" then 1
irb(main):013:1> else 2
irb(main):014:1> end
=> 2
(it never prints the message and should always return true anyway)
Note that ideally I'd like to do a
def ===(other)
#puts "in ==="
return #x.===(other)
end
Thanks in advance.
The expression after the 'case' keyword is the right hand side of the === expression, and the expression after the 'when' keyword is on the left hand side of the expression. So, the method that is being called is String.===, not A.===.
A quick approach to reversing the comparison:
class Revcomp
def initialize(obj)
#obj = obj
end
def ===(other)
other === #obj
end
def self.rev(obj)
Revcomp.new(obj)
end
end
class Test
def ===(other)
puts "here"
end
end
t = Test.new
case t
when Revcomp.rev("abc")
puts "there"
else
puts "somewhere"
end