The following code doesn't work, but it best show what I'm trying to achieve
context "this context describes the class" do
subject do
# described class is actually a module here
c = Class.new.extend(described_class)
c.some_method_that_has_been_added_through_extension
c
end
# ... testing the class itself here ...
context "instances of this class" do
subject do
# this doesn't work because it introduces a endless recursion bug
# which makes perfectly sense
subject.new
end
end
end
I also tried to use a local variable in the inner context that I initialized
with the subject, but no luck. Is there any way I can access the subject of a outer scope from within my subject definition in the inner scope?
Using #subject can sometimes cause trouble. It is "primarily intended" for use with the short-hand checks like #its.
It also can make example harder to read, as it can work to mask the name/intent of what you testing. Here's a blog post that David Chelimsky wrote on the topic of #subject and #let and their role in revealing intention: http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/blog/2012/05/13/spec-smell-explicit-use-of-subject/
Try using let, instead
https://www.relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-core/v/2-10/docs/helper-methods/let-and-let
Here is how I would most likely write it.
context "this context describes the class" do
let(:name_of_the_module) { Class.new.extend(described_class) }
before do
c.some_method_that_has_been_added_through_extension
end
# ... testing the class itself here ...
context "instances of this class" do
let(:better_name_that_describes_the_instance) { klass.new }
# ... test the instance
end
end
SIDENOTE
You might want to revisit whether you want to use subject at all. I prefer using #let in almost all cases. YMMV
Something that obviously works is using an instance variable in the inner context and initializing it not with the subject but subject.call instead. Subjects are Procs. Hence, my first approach didn't work.
context "instances of this class" do
klass = subject.call
subject { klass.new }
end
I have been looking for a solution to this, but for different reasons. When I test a method that could return a value or raise an error, I often have to repeat the subject in two contexts, once as a proc for raise_error and once normally.
What I discovered is that you can give subjects names, like lets. This let's you reference an named subject from an outer scope within a new subject. Here's an example:
describe 'do_some_math' do
let!(:calculator) { create(:calculator) }
# proc to be used with raise_error
subject(:do_some_math) {
-> { calculator.do_some_math(with, complicated, args) }
}
context 'when something breaks' do
it { is_expected.to raise_error } # ok
end
context 'when everything works' do
# here we call the named subject from the outer scope:
subject { do_some_math.call } # nice and DRY
it { is_expected.to be_a(Numeric) } # also ok!
end
end
Related
How do you test custom Bugsnag meta_data (in Ruby, with Rspec)?
The code that I want to test:
def do_something
thing_that_could_error
rescue => e
Bugsnag.notify(e) do |r|
r.meta_data = { my_extra_data: "useful info" }
end
end
The test I want to write:
context "when there's an error" do
it "calls Bugsnag with my special metadata" do
expect(Bugsnag).to receive(:notify) # TODO test meta_data values contain "my useful info"
expect do
do_something() # exception is thrown and rescued and sent to Bugsnag
end.not_to raise_error
end
end
I am using:
Ruby 2.6.6
Rspec 3.9.0
Bugsnag 6.17.0 https://rubygems.org/gems/bugsnag
The data inside of the meta_data variable is considerably more complicated than in this tiny example, which is why I want to test it. In a beautiful world, I would extract that logic to a helper and test the helper, but right now it is urgent and useful to test in situ.
I've been looking at the inside of the Bugsnag gem to figure this out (plus some Rspec-fu to capture various internal state and returned data) but at some point it's a good idea to ask the internet.
Since the metadata is complicated, I'd suggest simplifying it:
def do_something
thing_that_could_error
rescue => e
Bugsnag.notify(e) do |r|
r.meta_data = error_metadata(e, self, 'foo')
end
end
# I assumed that you'd like to pass exception and all the context
def error_metadata(e, object, *rest)
BugsnagMetadataComposer.new(e, object, *rest).metadata
end
So now you can have a separate test for BugsnagMetadataComposer where you have full control (without mocking) over how you initialize it, and test for metadata output.
Now you only have to test that BugsnagMetadataComposer is instantiated with the objects you want, metadata is called and it returns dummy hash:
let(:my_exception) { StandardError.new }
let(:mock_metadata) { Hash.new }
before do
# ensure thing_that_could_error throws `my_exception`
expect(BugsnagMetadataComposer)
.to receive(new)
.with(my_exception, subject, anything)
.and_return(mock_metadata)
end
And the hard part, ensure that metadata is assigned. To do that you can cheat a little and see how Bugsnag gem is doing it
Apparently there's something called breadcrumbs:
let(:breadcrumbs) { Bugsnag.configuration.breadcrumbs }
Which I guess has all the Bugsnag requests, last one on top, so you can do something similar to https://github.com/bugsnag/bugsnag-ruby/blob/f9c539670c448f7f129a3f8be7d412e2e824a357/spec/bugsnag_spec.rb#L36-L40
specify do
do_something()
expect(breadcrumbs.last.metadata).to eq(expected_metadata)
end
And for clarity, the whole spec would look a bit like this:
let(:my_exception) { StandardError.new }
let(:mock_metadata) { Hash.new }
before do
# ensure thing_that_could_error throws `my_exception`
expect(BugsnagMetadataComposer)
.to receive(new)
.with(my_exception, subject, anything)
.and_return(mock_metadata)
end
specify do
do_something()
expect(breadcrumbs.last.metadata).to eq(expected_metadata)
end
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 thought I understood how implicit subjects work in RSpec, but I don't.
Why is it that in the following example, the first spec with an explicit subject passes, but the second spec using an implicit subject fails with "undefined method `matches' for #":
class Example
def matches(str) ; true ; end
end
describe Example do
subject { Example.new }
specify { subject.matches('bar').should be_true }
it { matches('bar').should be_true }
end
(I'm using rspec 1.3, but I verified the same behavior with 2.10.1.)
Step back to some basic ruby: You're basically calling self.matches, and self in this case is an RSpec example.
You can call things like "should" on this example, with parameters, so you might try something like:
it { should matches('bar') }
but this will fail; there's no method matches on self still!
In this case, though, the subject really is the matches method, not the Example instance. So, if you want to continue using the implicit subject, your tests might be something like:
class Example
def matches(str) ; str == "bar" ; end
end
describe Example do
describe "#matches" do
let(:method) { Example.new.method(:matches) }
context "when passed a valid value" do
subject { method.call("bar") }
it { should be_true }
end
context "when passed an invalid value" do
subject { method.call("foo") }
it { should be_false }
end
end
end
I don't think you can call any methods of implicit subject. Implicit subject meanings you don't need to specify the subject, but if you want call any method you need to specify the subject.
Although Chris provided very nice answer, I recommend you to take a look at this blog post: http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/2012/05/13/spec-smell-explicit-use-of-subject/
How would you go about testing this with rspec?
class SomeClass
def map_url(size)
GoogleMap.new(point: model.location.point, size: size).map_url
end
end
The fact that your test seems "very coupled and brittle to mock" is a sign that the code itself is doing too many things at once.
To highlight the problem, look at this implementation of map_url, which is meaningless (returning "foo" for any size input) and yet passes your tests:
class SomeClass
def map_url(size)
GoogleMap.new.map_url
GoogleMap.new(point: model.location.point, size: size)
return "foo"
end
end
Notice that:
A new map is being initiated with the correct arguments, but is not contributing to the return value.
map_url is being called on a newly-initiated map, but not the one initiated with the correct arguments.
The result of map_url is not being returned.
I'd argue that the problem is that the way you have structured your code makes it look simpler than it actually is. As a result, your tests are too simple and thus fall short of fully covering the method's behaviour.
This comment from David Chelimsky seems relevant here:
There is an old guideline in TDD that suggests that you should listen to
your tests because when they hurt there is usually a design problem.
Tests are clients of the code under test, and if the test hurts, then so
do all of the other clients in the codebase. Shortcuts like this quickly
become an excuse for poor designs. I want it to stay painful because it
should hurt to do this.
Following this advice, I'd suggest first splitting the code into two separate methods, to isolate concerns:
class SomeClass
def new_map(size)
GoogleMap.new(point: model.location.point, size: size)
end
def map_url(size)
new_map(size).map_url
end
end
Then you can test them separately:
describe SomeClass do
let(:some_class) { SomeClass.new }
let(:mock_map) { double('map') }
describe "#new_map" do
it "returns a GoogleMap with the correct point and size" do
map = some_class.new_map('300x600')
map.point.should == [1,2]
map.size.should == '300x600'
end
end
describe "#map_url" do
before do
some_class.should_receive(:new_map).with('300x600').and_return(mock_map)
end
it "initiates a new map of the right size and call map_url on it" do
mock_map.should_receive(:map_url)
some_class.map_url('300x600')
end
it "returns the url" do
mock_map.stub(map_url: "http://www.example.com")
some_class.map_url('300x600').should == "http://www.example.com"
end
end
end
The resulting test code is a longer and there are 3 specs rather than two, but I think it more clearly and cleanly separates the steps involved in your code, and covers the method behaviour completely. Let me know if this makes sense.
So this is how I did it, it feels very coupled and brittle to mock it like this. Suggestions?
describe SomeClass do
let(:some_class) { SomeClass.new }
describe "#map_url" do
it "should instantiate a GoogleMap with the correct args" do
GoogleMap.should_receive(:new).with(point: [1,2], size: '300x600') { stub(map_url: nil) }
some_class.map_url('300x600')
end
it "should call map_url on GoogleMap instance" do
GoogleMap.any_instance.should_receive(:map_url)
some_class.map_url('300x600')
end
end
end
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)