I want to make a Test::Unit test_helper method that I can call to wipe a bunch of tables after the tests execute. Here's the general idea I have:
def self.wipe_models(*models)
def teardown
models.each do |model|
model = model.to_s.camelize.constantize
model.connection.execute "delete from #{model.table_name}"
end
end
end
However, when teardown runs, I get:
undefined local variable or method `models'
To me it looks like the "def" block doesn't obey usual rules for closures; I can't access variables defined outside of its scope.
So, how do I access a variable that's defined outside of a "def" method declaration?
You can do it as a closure with define_method:
def self.wipe_models(*models)
define_method(:teardown) do
models.each do |model|
model = model.to_s.camelize.constantize
model.connection.execute "delete from #{model.table_name}"
end
end
end
Now the method body is a block and can access models.
Method definitions are not closures in Ruby. The class, module, def, and end keywords are all scope gates. In order to maintain scope across a scope gate you have to pass a block; blocks are closures and thus run in the scope in which they were defined.
def foo
# since we're in a different scope than the one the block is defined in,
# setting x here will not affect the result of the yield
x = 900
puts yield #=> outputs "16"
end
# x and the block passed to Proc.new have the same scope
x = 4
square_x = Proc.new { x * x }
foo(&square_x)
Use a class instance variable:
cattr_accessor :models_to_wipe
def self.wipe_models(*models)
self.models_to_wipe = models
end
def teardown
self.class.models_to_wipe.each do |model|
model = model.to_s.camelize.constantize
model.connection.execute "delete from #{model.table_name}"
end
end
Related
Below is a simple rspec example:
describe 'Emails' do
email_ids.each do |email_id|
it "should display #{email_id}" do
end
end
end
def email_ids
[
'test1#example.com',
'test2#example.com',
'test3#example.com'
]
end
The above does not work, as methods are not accessible outside the it block.
Please advise how to make the method email_ids accessible outside the it block.
describe creates a (nested) class and evaluates the given block within that class:
describe 'Foo' do
p self #=> RSpec::ExampleGroups::Foo
describe '' do
p self #=> RSpec::ExampleGroups::Foo::Bar
end
end
it blocks on the other hand are evaluated in the corresponding class' instance:
describe 'Foo' do
it 'foo' do
p self #=> #<RSpec::ExampleGroups::Foo ...>
end
end
If you define a method via def email_ids, it becomes an instance method and is therefore only available within the instance, i.e. within it.
In order to make a method available within describe, you have to define it as a class method, i.e via def self.email_ids:
describe 'Emails' do
def self.email_ids
%w[test1#example.com test2#example.com test3#example.com]
end
email_ids.each do |email_id|
it "should display #{email_id}" do
end
end
end
Output:
Emails
should display test1#example.com
should display test2#example.com
should display test3#example.com
You can also reuse the helper method across multiple tests by putting it in a module and using extend. See Define helper methods in a module for more examples.
I have better solution for this, than above.
1.using 'procs' or just local variable as below:
email_ids = ->{ %w[test1#example.com test2#example.com test3#example.com] }
email_ids = { %w[test1#example.com test2#example.com test3#example.com] }
Scope of proc & local variable will be same, but if you want to pass an argument then 'procs' are useful.
2.Define 'email_ids' method in module and include that module in spec, so that method will be accessible inside and outside the 'it' block
module EmailFactoryHelper
def email_ids
%w[test1#example.com test2#example.com test3#example.com]
end
end
include in specs as below:
require 'factories_helper/email_factory_helper'
include EmailFactoryHelper
describe 'Emails' do
email_ids.call.each do |email_id|
it "should display #{email_id}" do
page.should have_content "#{email_id}"
end
end
end
Output:
Emails
should display test1#example.com
should display test2#example.com
should display test3#example.com
Finished in 41.56 seconds
3 examples, 0 failures
I have preferred step-2
Rather than using proc or scopes,
Simply use local variables outside describe block.
email_ids = [
'test1#example.com',
'test2#example.com',
'test3#example.com'
]
describe 'Emails' do
end
The solution is to simply define your structure within scope, instead of returning it from a method call:
EMAILS = [
'test1#example.com',
'test2#example.com',
'test3#example.com'
]
EMAILS.each do |email|
it "should display #{email}" do
end
end
The method wasn't accessible because you called the method before you defined the method. This simpler script has the same problem:
p email_ids
def email_ids
[
'test1#example.com',
'test2#example.com',
'test3#example.com'
]
end
"undefined local variable or method `email_ids' for main:Object (NameError)"
You must define your methods before you call them. You can solve this problem by moving the def email_ids above the describe 'Emails'.
short version of #stefan's answer:
needs to be
def self.email_ids
# stuff
end
(def self.method for context/describe/etc; def method for it/etc)
Here, I create a local variable in class scope:
class MyClass
x = 1
puts x
end
It prints 1 even if I don't create any instances of MyClass.
I want to use x in some method:
class MyClass
x = 1
def method
puts x
end
end
m = MyClass.new
m.method
And I can't. Why? I get that class definition creates a scope, but why is it not accessible in the method? Isn't scope of the method inside the scope of the class?
I can imagine that this is related to creation of a class. Since any class is an object of Class, maybe the scope of MyClass is the scope of some Class method, and the way of coupling methods of MyClass to that instance makes their scope completely different.
It also seems to me that I can't just create a scope with {} (like in C) or something like do..end. Am I correct?
Scope of a method is not inside the class. Each method has its own entirely new scope.
New scopes are created whenever you use the class, module, and def keywords. Using brackets, as in C, does not create a new scope, and in fact you cannot arbitrarily group lines of code using brackets. The brackets (or do...end) around a Ruby block create a block-level scope, where variables previously created in the surrounding scope are available, but variables created within the block scope do not escape into the surrounding scope afterward.
Instance methods share the scope of their instance variables with other instances methods. An instance variable defined in the scope of a class definition is available in class-level singleton methods, but not in instance methods of the class.
Illustration:
class Foo
x = 1 # available only here
#y = 2 # class-wide value
def self.class_x
#x # never set; nil value
end
def self.class_y
#y # class-wide value
end
def initialize(z)
x = 3 # available only here
#z = z # value for this instance only
end
def instance_x
#x # never set; nil
end
def instance_y
#y # never set; nil
end
def instance_z
#z # value for this instance only
end
end
Foo.class_x # => nil
Foo.class_y # => 2
Foo.new(0).instance_x # => nil
Foo.new(0).instance_y # => nil
foo3 = Foo.new(3)
foo4 = Foo.new(4)
foo3.instance_z # => 3
foo4.instance_z # => 4
You can access class-level instance variables from within instances using the class-level getter. Continuing the example above:
class Foo
def get_class_y
self.class.class_y
end
end
foo = Foo.new(0)
foo.get_class_y # => 2
There exists in Ruby the notion of a "class variable," which uses the ## sigil. In practice, there is almost never a reasonable use case for this language construct. Typically the goal can be better achieved using a class-level instance variable, as shown here.
Here, I create a local variable in class scope:
class MyClass
x = 1
puts x
end
It prints 1 even if I don't create any instances of MyClass.
Correct. The class definition body is executed when it is read. It's just code like any other code, there is nothing special about class definition bodies.
Ask yourself: how would methods like attr_reader/attr_writer/attr_accessor, alias_method, public/protected/private work otherwise? Heck, how would def work otherwise if it didn't get executed when the class is defined? (After all, def is just an expression like any other expression!)
That's why you can do stuff like this:
class FileReader
if operating_system == :windows
def blah; end
else
def blubb; end
end
end
I want to use x in some method:
class MyClass
x = 1
def method
puts x
end
end
m = MyClass.new
m.method
And I can't. Why? I get that class definition creates a scope, but why is it not accessible in the method? Isn't scope of the method inside the scope of the class?
No, it is not. There are 4 scopes in Ruby: script scope, module/class definition scope, method definition scope, and block/lambda scope. Only blocks/lambdas nest, all the others create new scopes.
I can imagine that this is related to creation of a class. Since any class is an object of Class, maybe the scope of MyClass is the scope of some Class method, and the way of coupling methods of MyClass to that instance makes their scope completely different.
Honestly, I don't fully understand what you are saying, but no, class definition scope is not method definition scope, class definition scope is class definition scope, and method definition scope is method definition scope.
It also seems to me that I can't just create a scope with {} (like in C) or something like do..end. Am I correct?
Like I said above: there are 4 scopes in Ruby. There is nothing like block scope in C. (The Ruby concept of "block" is something completely different than the C concept of "block.") The closest thing you can get is a JavaScript-inspired immediately-invoked lambda-literal, something like this:
foo = 1
-> {
bar = 2
foo + bar
}.()
# => 3
bar
# NameError
In general, that is not necessary in Ruby. In well-factored code, methods will be so small, that keeping track of local variables and their scopes and lifetimes is really not a big deal.
So just creating a class without any instances will lead to something
actually executing in runtime (even allocating may be)? That is very
not like C++. –
Check out this code:
Dog = Class.new do
attr_accessor :name
def initialize(name)
#name = name
end
end
If you execute that code, there won't be any output, but something still happened. For instance, a global variable named Dog was created, and it has a value. Here's the proof:
Dog = Class.new do
attr_accessor :name
def initialize(name)
#name = name
end
end
dog = Dog.new("Ralph")
puts dog.name
--output:--
Ralph
The assignment to the Dog constant above is equivalent to writing:
class Dog
...
...
end
And, in fact, ruby steps through each line inside the class definition and executes each line--unless the line of code is inside a def. The def is created but the code inside a def doesn't execute until the def is called.
A very common line you will see inside a class definition is:
attr_accessor :name
...which can be rewritten as:
attr_accessor(:name)
...which makes it obvious that it's a method call. Ruby executes that line--and calls the method--when you run a file containing the class definition. The attr_accessor method then dynamically creates and inserts a getter and a setter method into the class. At runtime. Yeah, this ain't C++ land anymore--welcome to NeverNever Land.
I get that class definition creates a scope, but why is it not
accessible in the method?
Because that is the way Matz decided things should be: a def creates a new scope, blocking visibility of variables outside the def. However, there are ways to open up the scope gates, so to speak: blocks can see the variables defined in the surrounding scope. Check out define_method():
class MyClass
x = 1
define_method(:do_stuff) do
puts x
end
end
m = MyClass.new
m.do_stuff
--output:--
1
The block is everything between do...end. In ruby, a block is a closure, which means that when a block is created, it captures the variables in the surrounding scope, and carries those variables with it until the the block is executed. A block is like an anonymous function, which gets passed to a method as an argument.
Note that if you use the Class.new trick, you can open two scope gates:
x = 1
MyClass = Class.new do
define_method(:do_stuff) do
puts x
end
end
m = MyClass.new
m.do_stuff
--output:--
1
Generally, ruby allows a programmer to do whatever they want, rules be damned.
class Foo
def self.run(n,code)
foo = self.new(n)
#env = foo.instance_eval{ binding }
#env.eval(code)
end
def initialize(n)
#n = n
end
end
Foo.run( 42, "p #n, defined? foo" )
#=> 42
#=> "local-variable"
The sample program above is intended to evaluate arbitrary code within the scope of a Foo instance. It does that, but the binding is "polluted" with the local variables from the code method. I don't want foo, n, or code to be visible to the eval'd code. The desired output is:
#=> 42
#=> nil
How can I create a binding that is (a) in the scope of the object instance, but (b) devoid of any local variables?
The reason that I am creating a binding instead of just using instance_eval(code) is that in the real usage I need to keep the binding around for later usage, to preserve the local variables created in it.
so like this? or did i miss something important here?
class Foo
attr_reader :b
def initialize(n)
#n = n
#b = binding
end
def self.run(n, code)
foo = self.new(n)
foo.b.eval(code)
end
end
Foo.run(42, "p #n, defined?(foo)")
# 42
# nil
or move it further down to have even less context
class Foo
def initialize(n)
#n = n
end
def b
#b ||= binding
end
def self.run(n, code)
foo = self.new(n)
foo.b.eval(code)
end
end
Foo.run(42, "p #n, defined?(foo), defined?(n)")
# 42
# nil
# nil
Answer:
module BlankBinding
def self.for(object)
#object = object
create
end
def self.create
#object.instance_eval{ binding }
end
end
Description:
In order to get a binding with no local variables, you must call binding in a scope without any of them. Calling a method resets the local variables, so we need to do that. However, if we do something like this:
def blank_binding_for(obj)
obj.instance_eval{ binding }
end
…the resulting binding will have an obj local variable. You can hide this fact like so:
def blank_binding_for(_)
_.instance_eval{ binding }.tap{ |b| b.eval("_=nil") }
end
…but this only removes the value of the local variable. (There is no remove_local_variable method in Ruby currently.) This is sufficient if you are going to use the binding in a place like IRB or ripl where the _ variable is set after every evaluation, and thus will run over your shadow.
However, as shown in the answer at top, there's another way to pass a value to a method, and that's through an instance variable (or class variable, or global variable). Since we are using instance_eval to shift the self to our object, any instance variables we create in order to invoke the method will not be available in the binding.
Forgive me, guys. I am at best a novice when it comes to Ruby. I'm just curious to know the explanation for what seems like pretty odd behavior to me.
I'm using the Savon library to interact with a SOAP service in my Ruby app. What I noticed is that the following code (in a class I've written to handle this interaction) seems to pass empty values where I expect the values of member fields to go:
create_session_response = client.request "createSession" do
soap.body = {
:user => #user, # This ends up being empty in the SOAP request,
:pass => #pass # as does this.
}
end
This is despite the fact that both #user and #pass have been initialized as non-empty strings.
When I change the code to use locals instead, it works the way I expect:
user = #user
pass = #pass
create_session_response = client.request "createSession" do
soap.body = {
:user => user, # Now this has the value I expect in the SOAP request,
:pass => pass # and this does too.
}
end
I'm guessing this strange (to me) behavior must have something to do with the fact that I'm inside a block; but really, I have no clue. Could someone enlighten me on this one?
First off, #user is not a "private variable" in Ruby; it is an instance variable. Instance variables are available within the the scope of the current object (what self refers to). I have edited the title of your question to more accurately reflect your question.
A block is like a function, a set of code to be executed at a later date. Often that block will be executed in the scope where the block was defined, but it is also possible to evaluate the block in another context:
class Foo
def initialize( bar )
# Save the value as an instance variable
#bar = bar
end
def unchanged1
yield if block_given? # call the block with its original scope
end
def unchanged2( &block )
block.call # another way to do it
end
def changeself( &block )
# run the block in the scope of self
self.instance_eval &block
end
end
#bar = 17
f = Foo.new( 42 )
f.unchanged1{ p #bar } #=> 17
f.unchanged2{ p #bar } #=> 17
f.changeself{ p #bar } #=> 42
So either you are defining the block outside the scope where #user is set, or else the implementation of client.request causes the block to be evaluated in another scope later on. You could find out by writing:
client.request("createSession"){ p [self.class,self] }
to gain some insight into what sort of object is the current self in your block.
The reason they "disappear" in your case—instead of throwing an error—is that Ruby permissively allows you to ask for the value of any instance variable, even if the value has never been set for the current object. If the variable has never been set, you'll just get back nil (and a warning, if you have them enabled):
$ ruby -e "p #foo"
nil
$ ruby -we "p #foo"
-e:1: warning: instance variable #foo not initialized
nil
As you found, blocks are also closures. This means that when they run they have access to local variables defined in the same scope as the block is defined. This is why your second set of code worked as desired. Closures are one excellent way to latch onto a value for use later on, for example in a callback.
Continuing the code example above, you can see that the local variable is available regardless of the scope in which the block is evaluated, and takes precedence over same-named methods in that scope (unless you provide an explicit receiver):
class Foo
def x
123
end
end
x = 99
f.changeself{ p x } #=> 99
f.unchanged1{ p x } #=> 99
f.changeself{ p self.x } #=> 123
f.unchanged1{ p self.x } #=> Error: undefined method `x' for main:Object
From the documentation:
Savon::Client.new accepts a block inside which you can access local variables and even public methods from your own class, but instance variables won’t work. If you want to know why that is, I’d recommend reading about instance_eval with delegation.
Possibly not as well documented when this question was asked.
In the first case, self evaluates to client.request('createSession'), which doesn't have these instance variables.
In the second, the variables are brought into the block as part of the closure.
Another way to fix the issue would be to carry a reference to your object into the block rather than enumerating each needed attribute more than once:
o = self
create_session_response = client.request "createSession" do
soap.body = {
:user => o.user,
:pass => o.pass
}
end
But now you need attribute accessors.
class Foo
def initialize
bar = 10
end
fiz = 5
end
Is there a possibility to get these local values (outside the class) ?
The local variable in initialize would be lost.
You are able to get the value fiz outside of the class, but only upon defining that class, and recording the return of the definition of the class.
return_of_class_definition = (class A ; fiz = 5 ; end) would assign the value of fiz to the variable.
You can also use binding but of course, this means changing the class, which may not be allowed for the exercise.
class A
bin = 15
$binding = binding
end
p eval 'bin', $binding
No. Once a local variable goes out of scope (for bar that is when the initialize method has run - for fiz when the end of the class definition has been reached), it's gone. No trace left.
While a local variable is still in scope you can see it (well, its name) with local_variables and get and set its value with eval (though that's definitely not recommended for sanity reasons), but once it's out of scope, that's it. No way to get it back.
In ruby we have something we could call scope gates - places when a program written in ruby leaves the previous scope. Those gates are: class, module and method (def keyword). In other words after class, module of def keyword in the code you're immediately entering into a new scope.
In ruby nested visibility doesn't happen and as soon as you create a new scope, the previous binding will be replaced with a new set of bindings.
For example if you define following class:
x = 1
class MyClass
# you can't access to x from here
def foo
# ...from here too
y = 1
local_variables
end
end
local_variables method call will return [:y]. It means that we don't have an access to the x variable. You can workaround this issue using ruby's technique called Flat Scopes. Basically instead defining a class using class keyword you can define it using Class.new and pass a block to this call. Obviously a block can take any local variables from the scope where it was defined since it's a closure!
Our previous example could be rewritten to something like like that:
x = 1
Foo = Class.new do
define_method :foo do
i_can_do_something_with(x)
y = 1
local_variables
end
end
In this case local_variables will return [:x, :y].