I am trying to execute rspec code passed in to a Ruby process as a string. How can I execute rspec from within a Ruby process rather than from the commandline and capture the results?
# Ruby code
code = '
#solution
class User
def in_role?(role)
true
end
end
#Tests to pass
describe User do
it "should be in any roles assigned to it" do
user = User.new
user.should be_in_role("assigned role")
end
end
'
# spec code
# numExamples = examples
# numFailures = failures
Is there any reason you should get the code as a string in first place? If you want to have access to the data rspec produces, you can try using a custom RSpec formatter
Related
Okay so I am completely new to using IRB so I have no idea what I am doing wrong.
Here is my gem that I built
# frozen_string_literal: true
require_relative "badwordgem/version"
require 'yaml' #this will need to use the badlist.yml file
module Badwordgem
class Error < StandardError; end
class Base
class << self # assign class to itself so self does not need to be used for every method
def badlist
#badlist ||= YAML.load_file(File.expand_path("badlist.yml", __dir__)) # This will load in the bad words from our YML file and it will assign it to the badlist variable
end
def sanitize(input = "sassy") # method to take in user input to check for profanity
word = input.downcase # It will change the user input and set it to lowercase to match our bad list of words
badlist.each do |key, value| # For every word in the badlist assign it a key(a bad word), and a value(then replace the bad work with * symbol)
word.gsub!(/\b#{key}\b/, value) # For each word the user has inputed replace the old word(key) with the new word(value)
end
word # return the word whether it contains profanity or not
end
end
end
end
Essentially it tests to see if a word is bad or not based on my list of badwords.
I have installed and built it but I have no idea how to test it in IRB.
I've tried running badwordgem.sanitize(hello) etc. but that clearly is wrong as it gives me this error undefined local variable or method badwordgem' for main:Object'
What command in IRB do I type to test it??
I'm new to Unit Testing using RSpec and Ruby and I have a question on how to test if my code is using the gets method, but without prompting for user input.
Here is the code I'm trying to test. Nothing crazy here, just a simple one liner.
my_file.rb
My_name = gets
Here's my spec.
require 'stringio'
def capture_name
$stdin.gets.chomp
end
describe 'capture_name' do
before do
$stdin = StringIO.new("John Doe\n")
end
after do
$stdin = STDIN
end
it "should be 'John Doe'" do
expect(capture_name).to be == 'John Doe'
require_relative 'my_file.rb'
end
end
Now this spec works, but when I run the code it prompts for user input. I don't want it to do that. I want to simply test if the gets method is being called and possibly mock the user input. Not to sure how to achieve this in RSpec. In Python I would utilize unittest.mock is there a similar method in RSpec?
Thanks in advance!
Here's how you could stub gets with your return value.
require 'rspec'
RSpec.describe do
describe 'capture_name' do
it 'returns foo as input' do
allow($stdin).to receive(:gets).and_return('foo')
name = $stdin.gets
expect(name).to eq('food')
end
end
end
Failures:
1) should eq "food"
Failure/Error: expect(name).to eq('food')
expected: "food"
got: "foo"
(compared using ==)
To test if something is being called (such as a function) you can use expect($stdin).to receive(:gets).with('foo') to ensure it is being called (once) with the right args. The expectation line in this scenario has to go before name = $stdin.gets.
I am trying to test the first ruby CLI i've written (n00b alert) and need some help. All my code is within 1 file, this includes a Class, OptionParser and some basic class execution methods. Here's an idea of what that looks like
The *rb. file
require 'optparse'
require 'fileutils'
class Foo
attr_accessor :arg, :opt
def initialize(p={})
#opt = p[:opt] || false
end
def do_something(arg)
#arg = arg
end
#more methods...
end
# Options
#options={}
#opt_parser = OptionParser.new do |opt|
opt.banner = "<{ FooBar }>"
opt.separator "------------"
opt.on("-o", "--opt", "An Option" do
#options[:opt] = true
end
end
#opt_parser.parse!
#CLI Execution
#foo = Foo.new(#options)
#foo.do_something(ARGV[0])
So here is the problem, i know would like to run some rspec tests rspec spec/ that i've wrote for the class, however the lines outside the class get executed of course and im left with an ARGV error.
What im looking for
Is there a better way to organize my code so i can test all the pieces, or how could i write a test to accommodate this file, Any and all suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
One posible solution is to wrap your option parsing code with a conditional that checks if the file is being run directly or loaded by some other file.
if __FILE__ == $0
# option parsing code
end
If you do that then all the code inside the if __FILE__ == $0 will not run with your test, but the rest of the code will run normally.
I often build little single-purpose Ruby scripts like this:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
class Widget
def end_data
DATA.read
end
def render_data source_data
source_data.upcase
end
end
w = Widget.new
puts w.render_data(w.end_data)
__END__
data set to work on.
I'd like to include RSpec tests directly inside the file while I'm working on it. Something like this (which doesn't work but illustrates what I'm trying to do):
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
class Widget
def end_data
DATA.read
end
def render_data source_data
source_data.upcase
end
def self_test
# This doesn't work but shows what I'm trying to
# accomplish. The goal is to have RSpec run these type
# of test when self_test is called.
describe "Widget" do
it "should render data properly" do
#w = Widget.new
expect(#w.render_data('test string')).to eq 'TEST STRING'
end
end
end
end
w = Widget.new
w.self_test
__END__
data set to work on.
I understand this is not the normal way to work with RSpec and isn't appropriate in most cases. That said, there are times when it would be nice. So, I'd like to know, is it possible?
There are two things. First off rspec by default won't pollute the global namespace with methods like describe and so on. The second thing is that you need to tell rspec to run the specs after they've been declared.
If you change your self_test method to be
RSpec.describe "Widget" do
it "should render data properly" do
#w = Widget.new
expect(#w.render_data('test string')).to eq 'TEST STRING'
end
end
RSpec::Core::Runner.invoke
(having of course done require 'rspec' then that will run your specs).
The invoke methods exits the process after running the specs. If you don't want to do that, or need more control over where output goes etc. you might want to drop down to the run method which allows you to control these things.
I'm trying to get my head around test-driven design, specifically RSpec. But I'm having trouble with some of the examples from The RSpec Book.
In the book, we test for output on $STDOUT like this:
output = double('output')
game = Game.new
output.should_receive(:puts).with('Welcome to Codebreaker!')
game.start()
Well, that works after a fashion. But why on earth should I care if the Game object uses the puts() method? If I change it to print(), should it really break the test? And, more importantly, isn't this against the one of the principals of TDD - that I should be testing what the method does (the design) rather than how it does it (the implementation)?
Is there some way I can write a test that just tests what ends up on $STDOUT, without looking at what method puts it there?
Create a display class with the ability to write the status out.
You production code will make use of this display object so you are free to change how you write to STDOUT. There will be just one place for this logic while your tests rely on the abstraction.
For example:
output = stub('output')
game = Game.new(output)
output.should_receive(:display).with('Welcome to Codebreaker!')
game.start()
While your production code will have something such as
class Output
def display(message)
# puts or whatever internally used here. You only need to change this here.
end
end
I'd make this test pass by doing the following:
def start
#output.display('Welcome to Codebreaker!')
end
Here the production code doesn't care how the output is displayed. It could be any form of display now the abstraction is in place.
All of the above theory is language agnostic, and works a treat. You still mock out things you don't own such as third party code, but you are still testing you are performing the job at hand via your abstraction.
take a look at this post. Nick raised questions about the same example, and a very interesting conversation follows in the comments. Hope you find it helpful.
Capture $stdout and test against that instead of trying to mock the various methods that might output to stdout. After all, you want to test stdout and not some convoluted method for mimicking it.
expect { some_code }.to match_stdout( 'some string' )
Which uses a custom Matcher (rspec 2)
RSpec::Matchers.define :match_stdout do |check|
#capture = nil
match do |block|
begin
stdout_saved = $stdout
$stdout = StringIO.new
block.call
ensure
#capture = $stdout
$stdout = stdout_saved
end
#capture.string.match check
end
failure_message_for_should do
"expected to #{description}"
end
failure_message_for_should_not do
"expected not to #{description}"
end
description do
"match [#{check}] on stdout [#{#capture.string}]"
end
end
RSpec 3 has changed the Matcher API slightly.
failure_message_for_should is now failure_message
failure_message_for_should_not is now failure_message_when_negated
supports_block_expectations? has been added to make errors clearer for blocks.
See Charles' answer for the complete rspec3 solution.
The way I'd test it is with a StringIO object. It acts like a file, but doesn't touch the filesystem. Apologies for the Test::Unit syntax - feel free to edit to RSpec syntax.
require "stringio"
output_file = StringIO.new
game = Game.new(output_file)
game.start
output_text = output_file.string
expected_text = "Welcome to Codebreaker!"
failure_message = "Doesn't include welcome message"
assert output_text.include?(expected_text), failure_message
I came across this blog post which helped me solve this issue:
Mocking standard output in rspec.
He sets up before/after blocks, and I ended up doing them inside the actual rspec itself, for some reason I couldn't get it to work from my spec_helper.rb as recommended.
Hope it helps!
An updated version of Matt's answer for RSpec 3.0:
RSpec::Matchers.define :match_stdout do |check|
#capture = nil
match do |block|
begin
stdout_saved = $stdout
$stdout = StringIO.new
block.call
ensure
#capture = $stdout
$stdout = stdout_saved
end
#capture.string.match check
end
failure_message do
"expected to #{description}"
end
failure_message_when_negated do
"expected not to #{description}"
end
description do
"match [#{check}] on stdout [#{#capture.string}]"
end
def supports_block_expectations?
true
end
end