It seems I understood something wrong. I have a class
module Spree
class OmnikassaPaymentResponse
#...
# Finds a payment with provided parameters trough ActiveRecord.
def payment(state = :processing)
Spree::Payment.find(:first, :conditions => { :amount => #amount, :order_id => #order_id, :state => state } ) || raise(ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound)
end
end
end
Which is specced in Rspec:
describe "#payment" do
it 'should try to find a Spree::Payment' do
Spree::Payment.any_instance.stub(:find).and_return(Spree::Payment.new)
Spree::Payment.any_instance.should_receive(:find)
Spree::OmnikassaPaymentResponse.new(#seal, #data).payment
end
end
This, however, always throws ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound. I expected any_instance.stub(:find).and_return() to make sure that whenever, wherever I call a #find on whatever instance I happen to have of Spree::Payment, it returns something.
In other words: I would expect the stub.and_return would avoid getting to || raise(ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound). But it does not.
Is my assumption wrong, my code? Something else?
In your case find is not an instance method, but a class method of Spree::Payment. That means you should stub it directly without any_instance like that:
Spree::Payment.stub(:find).and_return(Spree::Payment.new)
Related
I've attempted to create a model, which needs to pass a series of validation tests in RSpec. However, I constantly get the error
expected #<Surveyor::Answer:0x0055db58e29260 #question=#<Double Surveyor::Question>, #value=5> to respond to `valid?`
My understanding (from here) was that 'valid?' checks that no errors were added to the model. I can't find any errors, however the message above persists.
This is my model
module Surveyor
class Answer
attr_accessor :question, :value
def initialize(params)
#question = params.fetch(:question)
#value = params.fetch(:value)
end
end
end
And the class Question
module Surveyor
class Question
attr_accessor :title, :type
def initialize(params)
#title = params.fetch(:title, nil)
#type = params.fetch(:type)
end
end
end
And this is the test I am attempting to pass
RSpec.describe Surveyor::Answer, '03: Answer validations' do
let(:question) { double(Surveyor::Question, type: 'rating') }
context "question validation" do
context "when the answer has a question" do
subject { described_class.new(question: question, value: 5) }
it { should be_valid }
end
end
Is my understanding of 'valid?' correct? Am I able to look at 'valid?' and perhaps see where I'm going wrong?
RSpec doesn't actually have a matcher called be_valid, instead it has some dynamic predicate matchers:
For any predicate method, RSpec gives you a corresponding matcher. Simply prefix the
method with be_ and remove the question mark. Examples:
expect(7).not_to be_zero # calls 7.zero?
expect([]).to be_empty # calls [].empty?
expect(x).to be_multiple_of(3) # calls x.multiple_of?(3)
so by calling it { should be_valid }, your subject has to respond to a valid? method. If you're testing an ActiveRecord model, those have a valid? method, but your model does not. So, if you want to test that your Answer is valid, you need to decide "what is a valid answer?" and write a method that checks for those conditions. If you want an API similar to Rails model, you might be interested in using ActiveModel::Validations
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
This is a description of how to create a helper method in Rspec taken from the Rspec book (page 149). This example assumes that there is a method called 'set_status' which is triggered when the 'Thing' object is created.
Both sets of code create a new 'Thing' object, set the status, then do 'fancy_stuff'. The first set of code is perfect clear to me. One of the 'it' statements it triggered, which then calls the 'create_thing' method with options. A new 'Thing' object is created and the 'set_status' method is called with the 'options' attribute as the parameter.
The second set of code is similar. One of the 'it' statements is triggered, which then calls the 'given_thing_with' method while passing ':status' hash assignment as a parameter. Within the 'given_thing_with' method the 'yield' is triggered taking the 'Thing.new' as a parameter. This is where I am having trouble. When I try to run this code I get an error of "block given to yield". I understand that whatever attributes that are passed by yield will be returned to the 'thing' in pipe brace from the 'it' statement that called the 'given_thing_with' method. I can get the new
What I don't understand is why the code block is not called in the 'given_thing_with' method after the 'yield' command. In other words, I can't code in that block to run.
Thanks in advance for your help.
The remainder of this question is quoted directly from the Rspec book:
describe Thing do
def create_thing(options)
thing = Thing.new
thing.set_status(options[:status])
thing
end
it "should do something when ok" do
thing = create_thing(:status => 'ok')
thing.do_fancy_stuff(1, true, :move => 'left', :obstacles => nil)
...
end
it "should do something else when not so good" do
thing = create_thing(:status => 'not so good')
thing.do_fancy_stuff(1, true, :move => 'left', :obstacles => nil)
...
end
end
One idiom you can apply to clean this up even more is to yield self from initializers in your objects. Assuming that Thing's initialize() method does this and set_status() does as well, you can write the previous like this:
describe Thing do
def given_thing_with(options)
yield Thing.new do |thing|
thing.set_status(options[:status])
end
end
it "should do something when ok" do
given_thing_with(:status => 'ok') do |thing|
thing.do_fancy_stuff(1, true, :move => 'left', :obstacles => nil)
...
end
end
it "should do something else when not so good" do
given_thing_with(:status => 'not so good') do |thing|
thing.do_fancy_stuff(1, true, :move => 'left', :obstacles => nil)
...
end
end
end
The example in the book is a bit confusing because the implementation of Thing is not shown. To make this work you need to write Thing like so:
class Thing
def initialize
yield self
end
end
When given_thing_with is called it yields a new Thing, which will yield itself when it is constructed. This means that when the inner code block (the one containing thing.set_status) is executed it will have a reference to he newly built Thing.
There are 2 issues with the code from book.
1. Setting up the initializer to yield itself
When the Thing object is created, it needs an initializer and need yield itself.
class Thing
def initialize
yield self
end
end
However, this alone will still causes an error, at least on my system, which is Ruby 1.9.3. Specifically, the error is 'block given to yield (SyntaxError)'. This doesn't make much sense, since that is what we want it to do. Regarless, that is the error I get.
2. Fixing the 'block given to yield' error
This is not as obvious and has something to do with either Ruby or the 'yield' statement, but creating a block using 'do...end' as was written in the book and is shown below causes the error.
yield Thing.new do |thing|
thing.set_status(options[:status])
end
Fixing this error is simlpy a matter of creating the block using braces, '{...}', as is shown below.
yield Thing.new { |thing|
thing.set_status(options[:status])
}
This is not good form for multiline Ruby code, but it works.
Extra. How the series of yields works to set the parameters of the 'Thing' object
The problem is already fixed, but this explains how it works.
the "caller block" calls 'given_thing_with' method with a parameter
that method yields back to the "caller block" a new "Thing" and a block (I'll call it the "yield block")
to execute the "yield block", the Thing class needs the initialization and 'yield self', otherwise the 'set_status' method will never be run because the block will be ignored
the new "Thing" is already in the "caller block" and has it's status set and now the relevant method is executed
I have this:
def valid_attributes
{ :email => "some_#{rand(9999)}#thing.com" }
end
For Rspec testing right? But I would like to do something like this:
def valid_attributes
static user_id = 0
user_id += 1
{ :email => "some_#{user_id}#thing.com" }
end
I don't want user_id to be accessible from anywhere but that method,
is this possible with Ruby?
This is a closure case. Try this
lambda {
user_id = 0
self.class.send(:define_method, :valid_attributes) do
user_id += 1
{ :email => "some_#{user_id}#thing.com" }
end
}.call
Wrapping everything in lambda allows the variables defined within lambda to only exist in the scope. You can add other methods also. Good luck!
This answer is a little larger in scope than your question, but I think it gets at the root of what you're trying to do, and will be the easiest and most maintainable.
I think what you're really looking for here is factories. Try using something like factory_girl, which will make a lot of testing much easier.
First, you'd set up a factory to create whatever type of object it is you're testing, and use a sequence for the email attribute:
FactoryGirl.define do
factory :model do
sequence(:email) {|n| "person#{n}#example.com" }
# include whatever else is required to make your model valid
end
end
Then, when you need valid attributes, you can use
Factory.attributes_for(:model)
You can also use Factory.create and Factory.build to create saved and unsaved instances of the model.
There's explanation of a lot more of the features in the getting started document, as well as instructions on how to add factories to your project.
You can use a closure:
def validator_factory
user_id = 0
lambda do
user_id += 1
{ :email => "some_#{user_id}#thing.com" }
end
end
valid_attributes = validator_factory
valid_attributes.call #=> {:email=>"some_1#thing.com"}
valid_attributes.call #=> {:email=>"some_2#thing.com"}
This way user_id won't be accessible outside.
I'd use an instance variable:
def valid_attributes
#user_id ||= 0
#user_id += 1
{ :email => "some_#{#user_id}#thing.com" }
end
The only variables Ruby has are local variables, instance variables, class variables and global variables. None of them fit what you're after.
What you probably need is a singleton that stores the user_id, and gives you a new ID number each time. Otherwise, your code won't be thread-safe.
When using accepts_nested_attributes_for, I got stuck when having a validation which required the original to be present. The code will help clear up that sentence.
class Foo < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :bar
accepts_nested_attributes :bar
end
class Bar < ActiveRecord::Base
#property name: string
belongs_to :foo
validates_presence_of :foo #trouble line!
end
#now when you do
foo = Foo.create! :bar_attributes => {:name => 'steve'}
#you get an error because the bar validation failed
I would like to write a validation that goes something like...
class Bar < ActiveRecord::Base
validates_presence_of :foo, :unless => :being_built_by_foo?
end
I am currently using rails3.beta4
Thank you
Alas I don't have an answer to this post, but the I came up with another way so I didn't need the validation.
Since bar should never be without a foo then any request to create a bar without a foo_id is an error. In the real example a foo is a project, and bar is a bid. It is a nested resource, but I wanted to give access to json apps to be able to query the info from the /bids location so the router looked like.
resources :bids
resources :projects do
resources: bids
end
and then I just had to make sure all html access used project_bids_path or form_for [:project,#bid] etc. This next part is largely untested but so far the desired behavior is there. I got the idea from Yehuda's post on generic actions http://yehudakatz.com/2009/12/20/generic-actions-in-rails-3/
#I'm sure there is a better way then map.connect
map.connect "projects/invalid_id", :controller => "projects", :action => "invalid_id"
resources :projects
resources :bids
end
#couple of changes from Yehuda
def redirect(*args, &block)
options = args.last.is_a?(Hash) ? args.pop : {}
path = args.shift || block
path_proc = path.is_a?(Proc) ? path : proc {|params| path % params }
status = options[:status] || 301
lambda do |env|
req = Rack::Request.new(env)
#Get both the query paramaters and url paramaters
params = env["action_dispatch.request.path_parameters"].merge req.params
url = path_proc.call(params.stringify_keys)
#Doesn't add the port back in!
#url = req.scheme + '://' + req.host + params
#content-type might be a bad idea, need to look into what happens for different requests
[status, {'Location' => url, 'Content-Type' => env['HTTP_ACCEPT'].split(',').first}, ['Moved Permanently']]
end
end
def bid_path
redirect do |params|
if params['project_id']
"/projects/#{params['project_id']}/bids/#{params['id']}"
else
'/projects/invalid_id'
end
end
end
match "bids", :to => bid_path
match "bids/:id", :to => bid_path
however, after doing all of this I most definitely don't think it worth it. I think nested_attributes breaks things and can be improved if that validation doesn't work, but after looking through the code for a little while I'm not sure exactly how to fix it or if it's worth it.
first of all, when using nested_attributes, you'll get the presence of the container. in the example: when you save Foo and there's also a nested form for Bar, then Bar is built by Foo.
I think there's no need to make this kind of validation if you're sure to use Bar only in contexts with Foo.
btw, try to write validation as follow (new preferred syntax for Rails3):
validates :foo, :presence => true
hope this helps,
a.