I'm writing a few helpers to DRY up my tests. I pictured something like:
class ActiveSupport::TestCase
def self.test_presence_validation_of model, attribute
test "should not save #{model.to_s} with null #{attribute.to_s}", <<-"EOM"
#{model.to_s} = Factory.build #{model.to_sym}, #{attribute.to_sym} => nil
assert !#{model.to_s}.save, '#{model.to_s.capitalize} with null #{attribute.to_s} saved to the Database'
EOM
# Another one for blank attribute.
end
end
So that this:
class MemberTest < ActiveSupport::TestCase
test_presence_validation_of :member, :name
end
Executes exactly this at MemberTest class scope:
test 'should not save member with null name' do
member = Factory.build :member, :name => nil
assert !member.save, 'Member with null name saved to the Database'
end
Is it possible to do it this way (with a few adaptations, of course; I doubt my "picture" works), or do I have to use class_eval?
Have you seen Shoulda? It's great for testing common Rails functionality such as validations, relationships etc. https://github.com/thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers
In this case, it seems class_eval is necessary since I want to interpolate variable names into actual code.
Illustrated here.
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've written some RSpec tests that successfully create objects with :let statements. However, the test environment doesn't maintain the associations that function properly everywhere else. Below is an example of a class that would turn up a NoMethodError (undefined method `money' for nil:NilClass). Money is a column in Inventory. Any thoughts?
class Inventory < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :character
def self.return_money(character)
character.inventory.money
end
end
And here's a corresponding example for a spec doc:
require 'spec_helper'
describe 'Test methods' do
let(:trader) {
Character.create(
name: "Trader",
location_id: 1)
}
let(:trader_inventory) {
Inventory.create(
character_id: trader.id,
storage_capacity: 50000,
money: 20000,
markup: 1.35)
}
it "test method" do
expect(Inventory.return_money(trader)).to eq(100)
end
end
There is no reason this shouldn't work. RSpec isn't special, it's just regular Ruby code. You can confirm this by moving all of your code into a single file, something like:
ActiveRecord::Base.establish_connection(:adapter => 'sqlite3', :database => ':memory:')
ActiveRecord::Base.logger = Logger.new(STDOUT)
class Inventory < ActiveRecord::Base
end
class Character < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :inventory
end
describe 'test' do
it 'works' do
puts Character.first.inventory.money.inspect
end
end
Guesses as to what may be broken:
money is a composite field or something like that. Can you post your database schema?
Library files aren't being loaded correctly. Use puts $LOADED_FEATURES to verify that all the files that should be required have been.
I am creating a ruby project with the class which is the inheritance of ActiveRecord::Base. How can i write rspec testing and simple coverage for the following code sample without using database.
class Person < ActiveRecord::Base
validates_length_of :name, within: 10..40
end
person = Person.create(:name => "aungaung")
person.save
If you don't want to touch db, FactoryGirl.build_stubbed is your friend.
> person = FactoryGirl.build_stubbed :person
> person.save!
> #=> person obj
> Person.all
> #=> [] # Not saved in db
So, to test validation
it "validates name at length" do
person = FactoryGirl.build_stubbed :person, name: "aungaung"
expect{person.save!}.to raise_error(ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid)
end
Note build_stubbed is good at model's unit testing. For anything UI related, you can't use this method and need to save to db actually.
Here's a short example of testing the validations on an ActiveRecord model. You can certainly go into much more depth, and there are plenty of ways to make the tests more elegant, but this will suffice for a first test.
describe Person do
describe "#name" do
specify { Person.new(:name => "Short").should_not be_valid }
specify { Person.new(:name => "Long" * 12).should_not be_valid }
specify { Person.new(:name => "Just Right").should be_valid }
end
end
I'm working on a project to recreate some of the functionality of ActiveRecord. Here's the portion that isn't working
module Associations
def belongs_to(name, params)
self.class.send(:define_method, :other_class) do |name, params|
(params[:class_name] || name.camelize).constantize
end
self.class.send(:define_method, :other_table_name) do |other_class|
other_class.table_name
end
.
.
.
o_c = other_class(name, params)
#puts this and other (working) values in a query
query = <<-SQL
...
SQL
#sends it off with db.execute(query)...
I'm building towards this testing file:
require 'all_files' #holds SQLClass & others
pets_db_file_name = File.expand_path(File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__), "pets.db"))
DBConnection.open(pets_db_file_name)
#class Person
#end
class Pet < SQLClass
set_table_name("pets")
set_attrs(:id, :name, :owner_id)
belongs_to :person, :class_name => "Person", :primary_key => :id, :foreign_key => :owner_id
end
class Person < SQLClass
set_table_name("people")
set_attrs(:id, :name)
has_many :pets, :foreign_key => :owner_id
end
.
.
.
Without any changes I received
.../active_support/inflector/methods.rb:230:in `block in constantize': uninitialized constant Person (NameError)
Just to make sure that it was an issue with the order of loading the classes in the file I began the file with the empty Person class, which, as predicted gave me
undefined method `table_name' for Person:Class (NoMethodError)
Since this is a learning project I don't want to change the test to make my code work (open all the classes, set all the tables/attributes then reopen them them for belongs_to. But, I'm stuck on how else to proceed.)
EDIT SQLClass:
class SQLClass < AssignmentClass
extend SearchMod
extend Associations
def self.set_table_name(table_name)
#table_name = table_name
end
def self.table_name
#table_name
end
#some more methods for finding rows, and creating new rows in existing tables
And the relevant part of AssignmentClass uses send on attr_accessor to give functionality to set_attrs and makes sure that before you initialize a new instance of a class all the names match what was set using set_attrs.
This highlights an important difference between dynamic, interpreted Ruby (et al) and static, compiled languages like Java/C#/C++. In Java, the compiler runs over all your source files, finds all the class/method definitions, and matches them up with usages. Ruby doesn't work like this -- a class "comes into existence" after executing its class block. Before that, the Ruby interpreter doesn't know anything about it.
In your test file, you define Pet first. Within the definition of Pet, you have belongs_to :person. belongs_to does :person.constantize, attempting to get the class object for Person. But Person doesn't exist yet! Its definition comes later in the test file.
There are a couple ways I can think that you could try to resolve this:
One would be to do what Rails does: define each class in its own file, and make the file names conform to some convention. Override constant_missing, and make it automatically load the file which defines the missing class. This will make load order problems resolve themselves automatically.
Another solution would be to make belongs_to lazy. Rather than looking up the Person class object immediately, it could just record the fact that there is an association between Pet and Person. When someone tries to call pet.person, use a missing_method hook to actually define the method. (Presumably, by that time all the class definitions will have been executed.)
Another way would be do something like:
define_method(belongs_to) do
belongs_to_class = belongs_to.constantize
self.class.send(:define_method, belongs_to) do
# put actual definition here
end
self.send(belongs_to)
end
This code is not tested, it's just to give you an idea! Though it's a pretty mind-bending idea, perhaps. Basically, you define a method which redefines itself the first time it is called. Just like using method_missing, this allows you to delay the class lookup until the first time the method is actually used.
If I can say one more thing: though you say you don't want to "overload" method_missing, I don't think that's as much of a problem as you think. It's just a matter of extracting code into helper methods to keep the definition of method_missing manageable. Maybe something like:
def method_missing(name,*a,&b)
if has_belongs_to_association?(name)
invoke_belongs_to_association(name,a,b)
elsif has_has_many_association?(name)
invoke_has_many_association(name,a,b)
# more...
else
super
end
end
Progress! Inspired by Alex D's suggestion to use method_missing to delay the creation I instead used define_methodto create a method for the name, like so:
define_method, :other_class) do |name, params|
(params[:class_name] || name.camelize).constantize
end
define_method(:other_table_name) do |other_class|
other_class.table_name
end
#etc
define_method(name) do #|params| turns out I didn't need to pass in `params` at all but:
#p "---#{params} (This is line 31: when testing this out I got the strangest error
#.rb:31:in `block in belongs_to': wrong number of arguments (0 for 1) (ArgumentError)
#if anyone can explain this I would be grateful.
#I had declared an #params class instance variable and a getter for it,
#but nothing that should make params require an argument
f_k = foreign_key(name, params)
p f_k
o_c = other_class(name, params)
o_t_n = other_table_name(o_c)
p_k = primary_key(params)
query = <<-SQL
SELECT *
FROM #{o_t_n}
WHERE #{p_k} = ?
SQL
row = DBConnection.execute(query, self.send(f_k))
o_c.parse_all(row)
end
Also, what does "self.send attr" do? Is attr assumed to be a private instance variable of the ActiveEngineer class? Are there any other issues with this code in terms of Ruby logic?
class Applicant < ActiveEngineer
require 'ruby'
require 'mad_skills'
require 'oo_design'
require 'mysql'
validates :bachelors_degree
def qualified?
[:smart, :highly_productive, :curious, :driven, :team_player ].all? do
|attr|
self.send attr
end
end
end
class Employer
include TopTalent
has_millions :subscribers, :include=>:mostly_women
has_many :profits, :revenue
has_many :recent_press, :through=>[:today_show, :good_morning_america,
:new_york_times, :oprah_magazine]
belongs_to :south_park_sf
has_many :employees, :limit=>10
def apply(you)
unless you.build_successful_startups
raise "Not wanted"
end
unless you.enjoy_working_at_scale
raise "Don't bother"
end
end
def work
with small_team do
our_offerings.extend you
subscribers.send :thrill
[:scaling, :recommendation_engines, : ].each do |challenge|
assert intellectual_challenges.include? challenge
end
%w(analytics ui collaborative_filtering scraping).each{|task|
task.build }
end
end
end
def to_apply
include CoverLetter
include Resume
end
require 'mad_skills' loads the code in mad_skills.rb (or it loads mad_skills.so/.dll depending on which one exists). You need to require a file before being able to use classes, methods etc. defined in that file (though in rails files are automatically loaded when trying to access classes that have the same name as the file). Putting require inside a class definition, does not change its behaviour at all (i.e. putting it at the top of the file would not make a difference).
include MadSkills takes the module MadSkills and includes it into Applicant's inheritance chain, i.e. it makes all the methods in MadSkills available to instances of Applicant.
self.send attr executes the method with the name specified in attr on self and returns its return value. E.g. attr = "hello"; self.send(attr) will be the same as self.hello. In this case it executes the methods smart, highly_productive, curious, driven, and team_player and checks that all of them return true.