I'm writing a sinatra app and testing it with rspec and rack/test (as described on sinatrarb.com).
It's been great so far, until I moved some rather procedural code from my domain objects to
sinatra helpers.
Since then, I've been trying to figure out how to test these in isolation ?
I test my sinatra helpers in isolation by putting the helper methods within its own module.
Since my sinatra application is a little bit bigger than the usual hello world example, I need to split it up into smaller parts. A module for the common helpers suits my use case well.
If you write a quick demo, and you define your helper methods within the helpers { ... } block, I don't think testing it is absolutely necessary. Any sinatra app in production, may require more modularity anyways.
# in helpers.rb
module Helpers
def safe_json(string)
string.to_s.gsub(/[&><']/) { |special| {'&' => '\u0026', '>' => '\u003E', '<' => '\u003C', "'" => '\u0027'}[special] }
end
end
# in app.rb
helpers do
include Helpers
end
# in spec/helpers_spec.rb
class TestHelper
include Helpers
end
describe 'Sinatra helpers' do
let(:helpers) { TestHelper.new }
it "should escape json to inject it as a html attribute"
helpers.safe_json("&><'").should eql('\u0026\u003E\u003C\u0027')
end
end
Actually you don't need to do:
helpers do
include FooBar
end
Since you can just call
helpers FooBar
The helpers method takes a list of modules to mix-in and an optional block which is class-eval'd in: https://github.com/sinatra/sinatra/blob/75d74a413a36ca2b29beb3723826f48b8f227ea4/lib/sinatra/base.rb#L920-L923
maybe this can help you some way http://japhr.blogspot.com/2009/03/sinatra-innards-deletgator.html
I've also tried this (which needs to be cleaned up a bit to be reusable) to isolate each helper in its own environment to be tested:
class SinatraSim
def initialize
...set up object here...
end
end
def helpers(&block)
SinatraSim.class_eval(&block)
end
require 'my/helper/definition' # defines my_helper
describe SinatraSim do
subject { SinatraSim.new(setup) }
it "should do something"
subject.expects(:erb).with(:a_template_to_render) # mocha mocking
subject.my_helper(something).should == "something else"
end
end
Related
I'm trying write a test to assert that all defined operations are called on a successful run. I have the operations for a given process defined in a list and resolve them from a container, like so:
class ProcessController
def call(input)
operations.each { |o| container[o].(input) }
end
def operations
['operation1', 'operation2']
end
def container
My::Container # This is a Dry::Web::Container
end
end
Then I test is as follows:
RSpec.describe ProcessController do
let(:container) { My::Container }
it 'executes all operations' do
subject.operations.each do |op|
expect(container[op]).to receive(:call).and_call_original
end
expect(subject.(input)).to be_success
end
end
This fails because calling container[operation_name] from inside ProcessController and from inside the test yield different instances of the operations. I can verify it by comparing the object ids. Other than that, I know the code is working correctly and all operations are being called.
The container is configured to auto register these operations and has been finalized before the test begins to run.
How do I make resolving the same key return the same item?
TL;DR - https://dry-rb.org/gems/dry-system/test-mode/
Hi, to get the behaviour you're asking for, you'd need to use the memoize option when registering items with your container.
Note that Dry::Web::Container inherits Dry::System::Container, which includes Dry::Container::Mixin, so while the following example is using dry-container, it's still applicable:
require 'bundler/inline'
gemfile(true) do
source 'https://rubygems.org'
gem 'dry-container'
end
class MyItem; end
class MyContainer
extend Dry::Container::Mixin
register(:item) { MyItem.new }
register(:memoized_item, memoize: true) { MyItem.new }
end
MyContainer[:item].object_id
# => 47171345299860
MyContainer[:item].object_id
# => 47171345290240
MyContainer[:memoized_item].object_id
# => 47171345277260
MyContainer[:memoized_item].object_id
# => 47171345277260
However, to do this from dry-web, you'd need to either memoize all objects auto-registered under the same path, or add the # auto_register: false magic comment to the top of the files that define the dependencies and boot them manually.
Memoizing could cause concurrency issues depending on which app server you're using and whether or not your objects are mutated during the request lifecycle, hence the design of dry-container to not memoize by default.
Another, arguably better option, is to use stubs:
# Extending above code
require 'dry/container/stub'
MyContainer.enable_stubs!
MyContainer.stub(:item, 'Some string')
MyContainer[:item]
# => "Some string"
Side note:
dry-system provides an injector so that you don't need to call the container manually in your objects, so your process controller would become something like:
class ProcessController
include My::Importer['operation1', 'operation2']
def call(input)
[operation1, operation2].each do |operation|
operation.(input)
end
end
end
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've extracted a single class from a Rails app into a gem. It's very, very simple, but of course I'd like to fully test it (I'm using rspec).
The class does some simple date-calculation. It's not dependent on Rails, but since it started out in a Rails app, and is still used there, it uses ActiveSupport's time zone-aware methods when it can. But, if ActiveSupport isn't available, it should use the std-lib Date methods.
Specifically, it only does this in one single place: Defaulting an optional argument to "today's date":
arg ||= if Date.respond_to?(:current)
Date.current # use ActiveSupport's time zone-aware mixin if possible
else
Date.today # stdlib fallback
end
Question is: How do I properly test this? If I require ActiveSupport in my spec_helper.rb, it'll obviously always use that. If I don't require it anywhere, it'll never use it. And if I require it for a single example group, rspec's random execution order makes the testing unpredictable, as I don't know when AS will be required.
I can require maybe it in a before(:all) in a nested group, as nested groups are (I believe) processed highest to deepest. But that seems terribly inelegant.
I could also split the specs into two files, and run them separately, but again, that seems unnecessary.
I could also disable rspec's random ordering, but that's sort of going against the grain. I'd rather have it as randomized as possible.
Any ideas?
Another solution is to mock the current and today methods, and use those for testing. Eg:
# you won't need these two lines, just there to make script work standalone
require 'rspec'
require 'rspec/mocks/standalone'
def test_method(arg = nil)
arg ||= if Date.respond_to?(:current)
Date.current # use ActiveSupport's time zone-aware mixin if possible
else
Date.today # stdlib fallback
end
arg
end
describe "test_method" do
let(:test_date) { Date.new(2001, 2, 3) }
it "returns arg unchanged if not nil" do
test_method(34).should == 34
end
context "without Date.current available" do
before(:all) do
Date.stub(:today) { test_date }
end
it "returns Date.today when arg isn't present" do
test_method.should == test_date
end
end
context "with Date.current available" do
before(:all) do
Date.stub(:current) { test_date }
end
it "returns Date.current when arg isn't present" do
test_method.should == test_date
end
end
end
Running with rspec test.rb results in the tests passing.
Also, the stubs are present only in each context, so it doesn't matter what order the specs are run in.
This is more than a little perverse, but it should work. Include ActiveSupport, and then:
context "without ActiveSupport's Date.current" do
before(:each) do
class Date
class << self
alias_method :current_backup, :current
undef_method :current
end
end
end
# your test
after(:each) do
class Date
class << self
alias_method :current, :current_backup
end
end
end
end
I can't really recommend this; I would prefer to split out this one spec and run it separately as you suggested.
I have a line in my test:
page.has_reply?("my reply").must_equal true
and to make it more readable I want to use a custom matcher:
page.must_have_reply "my reply"
Based on the docs for https://github.com/zenspider/minitest-matchers I expect I need to write a matcher which looks something like this:
def have_reply(text)
subject.has_css?('.comment_body', :text => text)
end
MiniTest::Unit::TestCase.register_matcher :have_reply, :have_reply
The problem is that I can't see how to get a reference to the subject (i.e. the page object). The docs say "Note subject must be the first argument in assertion" but that doesn't really help.
There is a little example, you can create a class which should responds to set of methods matches?, failure_message_for_should, failure_message_for_should_not.
In matches? method you can get the reference to the subject.
class MyMatcher
def initialize(text)
#text = text
end
def matches? subject
subject =~ /^#{#text}.*/
end
def failure_message_for_should
"expected to start with #{#text}"
end
def failure_message_for_should_not
"expected not to start with #{#text}"
end
end
def start_with(text)
MyMatcher.new(text)
end
MiniTest::Unit::TestCase.register_matcher :start_with, :start_with
describe 'something' do
it 'must start with...' do
page = 'my reply'
page.must_start_with 'my reply'
page.must_start_with 'my '
end
end
There are many ways to get what you want here. The easiest way is to not mess with assertions, expectations, or matchers at all and just use an assert. So, assuming you already have the has_reply? method defined, you could just use this:
assert page.has_reply?("my reply")
But, that doesn't get you the must_have_reply syntax you are asking for. And I doubt you really have a has_reply? method. So, let's start.
Your asked "how to get a reference to the subject (i.e. the page object)". In this case the subject is the object that the must_have_reply method is defined on. So, you should use this instead of subject. But its not as straightforward as all that. Matchers add a level of indirection that we don't have with the usual Assertions (assert_equal, refute_equal) or Expectations (must_be_equal, wont_be_equal). If you want to write a Matcher you need to implement the Matcher API.
Fortunately for you you don't really have to implement the API. Since it seems you are already intending on relying on Cabybara's have_css matcher, we can simply use Capybara's HaveSelector class and let it implement the proper API. We just need to create our own Matchers module with a method that returns a HaveSelector object.
# Require Minitest Matchers to make this all work
require "minitest/matchers"
# Require Capybara's matchers so you can use them
require "capybara/rspec/matchers"
# Create your own matchers module
module YourApp
module Matchers
def have_reply text
# Return a properly configured HaveSelector instance
Capybara::RSpecMatchers::HaveSelector.new(:css, ".comment_body", :text => text)
end
# Register module using minitest-matcher syntax
def self.included base
instance_methods.each do |name|
base.register_matcher name, name
end
end
end
end
Then, in your minitest_helper.rb file, you can include your Matchers module so you can use it. (This code will include the matcher in all tests.)
class MiniTest::Rails::ActiveSupport::TestCase
# Include your module in the test case
include YourApp::Matchers
end
Minitest Matchers does all the hard lifting. You can now you can use your matcher as an assertion:
def test_using_an_assertion
visit root_path
assert_have_reply page, "my reply"
end
Or, you can use your matcher as an expectation:
it "is an expectation" do
visit root_path
page.must_have_reply "my reply"
end
And finally you can use it with a subject:
describe "with a subject" do
before { visit root_path }
subject { page }
it { must have_reply("my reply") }
must { have_reply "my reply" }
end
Important: For this to work, you must be using 'gem minitest-matchers', '>= 1.2.0' because register_matcher is not defined in earlier versions of that gem.
I'm trying to define a few let's and before hooks that will run globally for all my specs by including them in a separate file using the Rspec configuration block.
I tried something like:
module Helpers
def self.included(base)
base.let(:x){ "x" }
base.before(:all){ puts "x: #{x}" }
end
end
Rspec.configure{|c| c.include Helpers }
but this doesn't work as expected. The before(:all) doesn't just run before each main example group, but each nested one as well.
Then I found out about shared_context and it appears to be exactly what I want.
My open problem however is that I can't figure out how to share a context amongst ALL of my specs. The docs only reference include_context within a specific spec.
Can anyone tell me how I can achieve this behavior in a global manner? I'm aware that I can define global before hooks in my spec_helper but I can't seem to use let. I'd like a single place that I can define both of these things and not pollute my spec helper, but just include it instead.
I tried to reproduce your error, but failed.
# spec_helper.rb
require 'support/global_helpers'
RSpec.configure do |config|
config.include MyApp::GlobalHelpers
end
# support/global_helpers.rb
module MyApp
module GlobalHelpers
def self.included(base)
base.let(:beer) { :good }
base.before(:all) { #bottles = 10 }
end
end
end
# beer_spec.rb
require 'spec_helper'
describe "Brewery" do
it "makes good stuff" do
beer.should be :good
end
it "makes not too much bottles" do
#bottles.should == 10
end
context "when tasting beer" do
before(:all) do
#bottles -= 1
end
it "still produces good stuff" do
beer.should be :good
end
it "spends some beer on degusting" do
#bottles.should == 9
end
end
end
https://gist.github.com/2283634
When I wrote something like base.before(:all) { p 'global before'; #bottles = 10 }, I got exactly one line in spec output.
Notice that I didn't try to modify instance variables inside an example, because it wouldn't work anyway (well, actually you can modify instance variables, if it's a hash or array). Moreover, even if you change before(:all) in nested example group to before(:each), there will be still 9 bottles in each example.