From barjunk at attglobal.net  Sun Jul  1 14:35:02 2007
From: barjunk at attglobal.net (barsalou)
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 10:35:02 -0800
Subject: [rspec-users] testing instance variables that are set
	inside	views
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0706301341l19d4041bvca9dd519ce3b74fc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <468576DB.7060803@vanderbilt.edu>
	<8d961d900706300052n47b6798ci16a2d0b5667ccd42@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070630123510.rsfz95u3okkks4s4@lcgalaska.com>
	<57c63afe0706301341l19d4041bvca9dd519ce3b74fc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070701103502.nzp6dpib2o80s0s0@lcgalaska.com>

Quoting David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>:

>>>
>> Thanks Aslak, I wondered this myself.  I looked around here :
>> http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rdoc/index.html for have_tag but didn't find
>> it.
>>
>> Where would be a good place to find some of these matchers?
>
> have_tag is not part of rspec's core, it's in the rails plugin. The
> rdoc for that is at http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rdoc-rails/index.html
>
> Cheers,
> David

Perfect, thanks!

Mike B.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


From barjunk at attglobal.net  Sun Jul  1 18:05:21 2007
From: barjunk at attglobal.net (barsalou)
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 14:05:21 -0800
Subject: [rspec-users] rspec for the svn-less (ruby version)
Message-ID: <20070701140521.mkcxpwec08kokoog@lcgalaska.com>

A couple of things:

- it is defaulted to 1.0.5, but if there was a "current" I could 
probably use that instead.

- it seems like everyone might not use the rspec_on_rails piece...what 
do other think?

- there are some other checks I could put in here, suggestions are welcome.

- general code suggestions are welcome as well.

Mike B.


Here is my ruby version:

#!/usr/bin/ruby -w

require 'ftools'

def usage
  puts
  puts "Usage: makespec.rb <path> [<dotted-version>]"
  puts
  puts "Version defaults to 1.0.5"
  puts
  puts "Example: "
  puts "   makespec.rb /var/www/rails/railsapp 1.0.5"
  puts
end

if ARGV[0].nil? then
  usage
  puts
  puts "You must include a pathname"
  puts
  exit 1
end

version = ARGV[1]

if ARGV[1].nil? then
  puts
  puts "Defaulting to version: 1.0.5"
  puts
  version = "1.0.5"
end

rspec="rspec-" + version + ".tgz"
rspecrails="rspec_on_rails-" + version + ".tgz"
app = ARGV[0]

if ! File.exist?(rspec) then
  puts
  puts "Rspec tarball (" + rspec + ") does not exist in the current directory"
  puts
  exit 1
end

if ! File.exist?(rspecrails) then
  puts
  puts "Rspec-rails tarball (" + rspecrails + ") does not exist in the 
current d
irectory"
  puts
  exit 1
end

if FileTest.directory? app + "/vendor/plugins" then
   system("tar","zxvf", rspec)
   system("tar","zxvf", rspecrails)
   cwd = Dir.pwd
   Dir.chdir(app + "/vendor/plugins")
   File.move(cwd + "/" + File.basename(rspec,".tgz"),app + 
"/vendor/plugins/rspec")
   File.move(cwd + "/" + File.basename(rspecrails,".tgz"),app + 
"/vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails")
else
   puts app + "/vendor/plugins doesn't exist"
   exit 1
end


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


From aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com  Sun Jul  1 21:06:12 2007
From: aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com (aslak hellesoy)
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 03:06:12 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] rspec for the svn-less (ruby version)
In-Reply-To: <20070701140521.mkcxpwec08kokoog@lcgalaska.com>
References: <20070701140521.mkcxpwec08kokoog@lcgalaska.com>
Message-ID: <8d961d900707011806h1b6afe9ag7c9d5450b3f295cb@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/2/07, barsalou <barjunk at attglobal.net> wrote:
> A couple of things:
>
> - it is defaulted to 1.0.5, but if there was a "current" I could
> probably use that instead.
>

http://rspec.rubyforge.org/download.html says 1.0.5, I'll try to
remember to mention svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rspec/tags/CURRENT,
which is pointing to (and will continue to point to) the latest
release.

> - it seems like everyone might not use the rspec_on_rails piece...what
> do other think?
>

Your observation is correct. Many people use RSpec without Rails. It
was always meant to be a generic tool, and it will remain that way,
while continuing Rails support in the sister Spec::Rails project.

> - there are some other checks I could put in here, suggestions are welcome.
>

I prefer cash. I will send you my account number privately :-).

> - general code suggestions are welcome as well.
>
> Mike B.
>
>
> Here is my ruby version:
>
> #!/usr/bin/ruby -w
>
> require 'ftools'
>
> def usage
>   puts
>   puts "Usage: makespec.rb <path> [<dotted-version>]"
>   puts
>   puts "Version defaults to 1.0.5"
>   puts
>   puts "Example: "
>   puts "   makespec.rb /var/www/rails/railsapp 1.0.5"
>   puts
> end
>
> if ARGV[0].nil? then
>   usage
>   puts
>   puts "You must include a pathname"
>   puts
>   exit 1
> end
>
> version = ARGV[1]
>
> if ARGV[1].nil? then
>   puts
>   puts "Defaulting to version: 1.0.5"
>   puts
>   version = "1.0.5"
> end
>
> rspec="rspec-" + version + ".tgz"
> rspecrails="rspec_on_rails-" + version + ".tgz"
> app = ARGV[0]
>
> if ! File.exist?(rspec) then
>   puts
>   puts "Rspec tarball (" + rspec + ") does not exist in the current directory"
>   puts
>   exit 1
> end
>
> if ! File.exist?(rspecrails) then
>   puts
>   puts "Rspec-rails tarball (" + rspecrails + ") does not exist in the
> current d
> irectory"
>   puts
>   exit 1
> end
>
> if FileTest.directory? app + "/vendor/plugins" then
>    system("tar","zxvf", rspec)
>    system("tar","zxvf", rspecrails)
>    cwd = Dir.pwd
>    Dir.chdir(app + "/vendor/plugins")
>    File.move(cwd + "/" + File.basename(rspec,".tgz"),app +
> "/vendor/plugins/rspec")
>    File.move(cwd + "/" + File.basename(rspecrails,".tgz"),app +
> "/vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails")
> else
>    puts app + "/vendor/plugins doesn't exist"
>    exit 1
> end
>

Rake also makes tarballs, and I think correctly so. It seems like the
reason why our (gzipped) tarballs are broken
(http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=797) is the upload/release tool we
use - or possibly (but not likely) a RubyForge bug. I don't think your
script will make a difference, but I'll definitely look into it the
next time I adress the tarball bug.

>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Mon Jul  2 05:18:21 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:18:21 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Aspects in RSpec 1.0.5
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0706270857k317b943cg2b87184baebcc155@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3CDEC40C-9326-4424-9667-5EC656CD1C3F@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<57c63afe0706270857k317b943cg2b87184baebcc155@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C360A30C-F8E1-4A09-9834-9C32C10DC5FE@ashleymoran.me.uk>


On 27 Jun 2007, at 16:57, David Chelimsky wrote:

> There's an RFE for this in the tracker - wanna contribute this as a
> patch? If you do, please use "facet" instead of "aspect".


I had a quick look at this - didn't get much chance because I had  
work to do too.  I had a scan through the specs and code for the  
Behaviour class, but I came a bit unstuck because adding the "facet"  
method doesn't actually add any behaviour.  So what goes in the  
specs?  Is it enough to test that a spec inside a facet (inside a  
facet?) runs?  Or a spec inside a facet (inside a facet?) fails?  Or  
should I test that specs get added to the list of those due to run?

Ashley



From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul  2 05:22:32 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 04:22:32 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Aspects in RSpec 1.0.5
In-Reply-To: <C360A30C-F8E1-4A09-9834-9C32C10DC5FE@ashleymoran.me.uk>
References: <3CDEC40C-9326-4424-9667-5EC656CD1C3F@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<57c63afe0706270857k317b943cg2b87184baebcc155@mail.gmail.com>
	<C360A30C-F8E1-4A09-9834-9C32C10DC5FE@ashleymoran.me.uk>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707020222p16330702u3befb471a3ddf26c@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/2/07, Ashley Moran <work at ashleymoran.me.uk> wrote:
>
> On 27 Jun 2007, at 16:57, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> > There's an RFE for this in the tracker - wanna contribute this as a
> > patch? If you do, please use "facet" instead of "aspect".
>
>
> I had a quick look at this - didn't get much chance because I had
> work to do too.  I had a scan through the specs and code for the
> Behaviour class, but I came a bit unstuck because adding the "facet"
> method doesn't actually add any behaviour.  So what goes in the
> specs?  Is it enough to test that a spec inside a facet (inside a
> facet?) runs?  Or a spec inside a facet (inside a facet?) fails?  Or
> should I test that specs get added to the list of those due to run?

IIRC, part of the facet idea was to prepend the facet text to the
descriptive string:

describe XP do
  facet "pair programming" do
    it "should work better when team members have breath mints" do
    end
  end
end

XP
- (pair programming) should work better when team members have breath mints

So you could write examples that describe the behaviour's description string.

David


>
> Ashley
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dgleal at gmail.com  Mon Jul  2 06:33:54 2007
From: dgleal at gmail.com (David Leal)
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:33:54 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing route globbing and limitations of get()
Message-ID: <1b86cb980707020333p6303d7eu4b9a53a7d927fa23@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

I'm new to rails and also to rspec, but I tried to do my homework. To answer
my questions, I searched this list's archives, the Rails API, and Google, to
no avail. Therefor, I'd be grateful if someone could point me in the right
directions:

1) There doesn't seem to be a counterpart to assert_recognizes in rspec.
route_for() won't work with route globbing (or will it?) So, how do I test
route globbing?

2) Still using route globbing, if I do

get '/something/somewhere'

rspec will complain that it couldn't find an action for
'/something/somewhere'. I suppose this is the correct behaviour, since we're
testing the controller, and not routing. However, since the controller
action is a catchall, I must pass a path to it, or it won't know what to do.
If I try to specify the path using

request.path = '/something/somewhere'
get 'my_action_name'

the path comes out as '/'.

Can anyone instruct me on how to do this correctly?

Cheers,

-- 
David Leal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070702/88d94b31/attachment.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul  2 08:51:58 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 07:51:58 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing route globbing and limitations of get()
In-Reply-To: <1b86cb980707020333p6303d7eu4b9a53a7d927fa23@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1b86cb980707020333p6303d7eu4b9a53a7d927fa23@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707020551k2e394373o8a7109167446cf9c@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/2/07, David Leal <dgleal at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm new to rails and also to rspec, but I tried to do my homework. To answer
> my questions, I searched this list's archives, the Rails API, and Google, to
> no avail. Therefor, I'd be grateful if someone could point me in the right
> directions:
>
> 1) There doesn't seem to be a counterpart to assert_recognizes in rspec.
> route_for() won't work with route globbing (or will it?) So, how do I test
> route globbing?

For now you can use assert_recognizes.

>
> 2) Still using route globbing, if I do
>
> get '/something/somewhere'

You can use full paths like that in Rails integration testing (which
is not yet supported in RSpec), but not in controllers. For controller
examples, you just use the action name:

describe SomethingController do
  it "should get me somewhere" do
    get 'somewhere'
    ...

> rspec will complain that it couldn't find an action for
> '/something/somewhere'.

That's Rails complaining. RSpec is just the messenger.

> I suppose this is the correct behaviour, since we're
> testing the controller, and not routing. However, since the controller
> action is a catchall, I must pass a path to it, or it won't know what to do.
> If I try to specify the path using
>
> request.path = '/something/somewhere'
> get 'my_action_name'
>
> the path comes out as '/'.

This is all stuff related to Integration Testing, which I'm guessing
is what you read about.

> Can anyone instruct me on how to do this correctly?

I think this should be answered by now. Write back if you still don't
understand.

Cheers,
David

>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> David Leal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dgleal at gmail.com  Mon Jul  2 11:31:14 2007
From: dgleal at gmail.com (David Leal)
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 16:31:14 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing route globbing and limitations of get()
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707020551k2e394373o8a7109167446cf9c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1b86cb980707020333p6303d7eu4b9a53a7d927fa23@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707020551k2e394373o8a7109167446cf9c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1b86cb980707020831w8227a51k536447ab5ae3bfef@mail.gmail.com>

Hi David, thanks for your reply.

Regarding the last topic below, there's something about which I'm not quite
clear:

The catchall method that I'm trying to test works by getting a path from the
request object passed to it (during testing it's a TestRequest object). If I
understand correctly, there is no way to test this method without writing an
integration test. But shouldn't the request object honor the path I've set
instead of resetting it?

On 7/2/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If I try to specify the path using
> >
> > request.path = '/something/somewhere'
> > get 'my_action_name'
> >
> > the path comes out as '/'.
>
> This is all stuff related to Integration Testing, which I'm guessing
> is what you read about.
>
> > Can anyone instruct me on how to do this correctly?
>
> I think this should be answered by now. Write back if you still don't
> understand.
>

-- 
David Leal
969 572 510
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070702/a7896cb2/attachment.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul  2 11:34:30 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:34:30 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing route globbing and limitations of get()
In-Reply-To: <1b86cb980707020831w8227a51k536447ab5ae3bfef@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1b86cb980707020333p6303d7eu4b9a53a7d927fa23@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707020551k2e394373o8a7109167446cf9c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1b86cb980707020831w8227a51k536447ab5ae3bfef@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707020834v2b7e5fa7x1594388315761898@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/2/07, David Leal <dgleal at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi David, thanks for your reply.
>
> Regarding the last topic below, there's something about which I'm not quite
> clear:
>
> The catchall method that I'm trying to test works by getting a path from the
> request object passed to it (during testing it's a TestRequest object). If I
> understand correctly, there is no way to test this method without writing an
> integration test. But shouldn't the request object honor the path I've set
> instead of resetting it?

I've never tried to do what you're doing so I can't answer from
experience. What I can tell you is that the TestRequest object is part
of Rails, not rspec, so you might have some good luck on the rails
forums and mailing lists.

>
>
> On 7/2/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If I try to specify the path using
> > >
> > > request.path = '/something/somewhere'
> > > get 'my_action_name'
> > >
> > > the path comes out as '/'.
> >
> > This is all stuff related to Integration Testing, which I'm guessing
> > is what you read about.
> >
> > > Can anyone instruct me on how to do this correctly?
> >
> > I think this should be answered by now. Write back if you still don't
> > understand.
> >
>
> --
>  David Leal
> 969 572 510
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dgleal at gmail.com  Mon Jul  2 11:43:30 2007
From: dgleal at gmail.com (David Leal)
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 16:43:30 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing route globbing and limitations of get()
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707020834v2b7e5fa7x1594388315761898@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1b86cb980707020333p6303d7eu4b9a53a7d927fa23@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707020551k2e394373o8a7109167446cf9c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1b86cb980707020831w8227a51k536447ab5ae3bfef@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707020834v2b7e5fa7x1594388315761898@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1b86cb980707020843r20a1dd0erdfe42a2f1c3468fe@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for your answers, David. I'll investigate. It's still a bit hard for
me to understand where are the boundaries between rails tests and rspec.

Cheers,

David

On 7/2/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/2/07, David Leal <dgleal at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi David, thanks for your reply.
> >
> > Regarding the last topic below, there's something about which I'm not
> quite
> > clear:
> >
> > The catchall method that I'm trying to test works by getting a path from
> the
> > request object passed to it (during testing it's a TestRequest object).
> If I
> > understand correctly, there is no way to test this method without
> writing an
> > integration test. But shouldn't the request object honor the path I've
> set
> > instead of resetting it?
>
> I've never tried to do what you're doing so I can't answer from
> experience. What I can tell you is that the TestRequest object is part
> of Rails, not rspec, so you might have some good luck on the rails
> forums and mailing lists.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070702/4d688559/attachment.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul  2 11:46:30 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:46:30 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing route globbing and limitations of get()
In-Reply-To: <1b86cb980707020843r20a1dd0erdfe42a2f1c3468fe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1b86cb980707020333p6303d7eu4b9a53a7d927fa23@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707020551k2e394373o8a7109167446cf9c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1b86cb980707020831w8227a51k536447ab5ae3bfef@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707020834v2b7e5fa7x1594388315761898@mail.gmail.com>
	<1b86cb980707020843r20a1dd0erdfe42a2f1c3468fe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707020846rf41c8c6re2a9c14433eca018@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/2/07, David Leal <dgleal at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your answers, David. I'll investigate. It's still a bit hard for
> me to understand where are the boundaries between rails tests and rspec.

Spec::Rails, RSpec's rails plugin, wraps test/unit, so:

Model Examples work like Rails unit tests
View, Controller and Helper Examples work like Rails functional tests

We don't have a parallel to Rails integration tests.

That help?

>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
>
>  On 7/2/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/2/07, David Leal <dgleal at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi David, thanks for your reply.
> > >
> > > Regarding the last topic below, there's something about which I'm not
> quite
> > > clear:
> > >
> > > The catchall method that I'm trying to test works by getting a path from
> the
> > > request object passed to it (during testing it's a TestRequest object).
> If I
> > > understand correctly, there is no way to test this method without
> writing an
> > > integration test. But shouldn't the request object honor the path I've
> set
> > > instead of resetting it?
> >
> > I've never tried to do what you're doing so I can't answer from
> > experience. What I can tell you is that the TestRequest object is part
> > of Rails, not rspec, so you might have some good luck on the rails
> > forums and mailing lists.
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dgleal at gmail.com  Mon Jul  2 12:31:36 2007
From: dgleal at gmail.com (David Leal)
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 17:31:36 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing route globbing and limitations of get()
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707020846rf41c8c6re2a9c14433eca018@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1b86cb980707020333p6303d7eu4b9a53a7d927fa23@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707020551k2e394373o8a7109167446cf9c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1b86cb980707020831w8227a51k536447ab5ae3bfef@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707020834v2b7e5fa7x1594388315761898@mail.gmail.com>
	<1b86cb980707020843r20a1dd0erdfe42a2f1c3468fe@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707020846rf41c8c6re2a9c14433eca018@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1b86cb980707020931h40ce0cc1y3db1365f155b8efb@mail.gmail.com>

I see. It's simple. Sorry that I missed that.

I looked at Mephisto's tests to see how they do it. Turns out you need to
call

get :action, :path => ["all", "path", "components"] # for
/all/path/components

Again, thanks for the help, David.

Cheers,

David

On 7/2/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/2/07, David Leal <dgleal at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for your answers, David. I'll investigate. It's still a bit hard
> for
> > me to understand where are the boundaries between rails tests and rspec.
>
> Spec::Rails, RSpec's rails plugin, wraps test/unit, so:
>
> Model Examples work like Rails unit tests
> View, Controller and Helper Examples work like Rails functional tests
>
> We don't have a parallel to Rails integration tests.
>
> That help?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070702/f8f714b0/attachment.html 

From pritchie at videotron.ca  Tue Jul  3 14:28:30 2007
From: pritchie at videotron.ca (Patrick Ritchie)
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:28:30 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] testing instance variables that are set inside
	views
In-Reply-To: <8d961d900706300052n47b6798ci16a2d0b5667ccd42@mail.gmail.com>
References: <468576DB.7060803@vanderbilt.edu>
	<8d961d900706300052n47b6798ci16a2d0b5667ccd42@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <468A954E.2060704@videotron.ca>

Hi,

I think @header may not be an implementation detail in this case.

If your layout looks like this:

...
<head>
<title><%= @header || 'Default Title' %></title>
</head>
...

And the view we are testing looks like this:

...
<h1><%= @header = 'Specific Title'></h1>
...

Then setting @header is an essential behavior for the view spec.

Or am I missing something?

Cheers!
Patrick
> @header is an implementation detail of your view that you shouldn't
> care about in your view spec at all. I recommend you use the have_tag
> matcher instead to verify what content gets rendered as expected.
>
> Aslak
>
> On 6/29/07, Jeremy Stephens <jeremy.f.stephens at vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>   
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In my view specs (for Rails), how can I get at instance variables that
>> are set within my view?  For example, if my view looks like this:
>>
>> <% @header = "My Header" -%>
>> <div>some content</div>
>>
>> How can I get to @header from within my view spec?  I've tried @header
>> and assigns[:header] to no avail.
>>
>> TIA,
>> Jeremy
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Stephens   Computer Systems Analyst I    School of Medicine
>>                   Department of Biostatistics   Vanderbilt University
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070703/7dc3b9d2/attachment-0001.html 

From has.sox at gmail.com  Wed Jul  4 00:38:25 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 14:38:25 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing Rails Associations
Message-ID: <2fff50390707032138y9ba5542pd92087d78ae33712@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm very new to rspec, so if this is not the right forum please let me know.

I'm starting to spec my models first in an existing rails app, porting from
a mix of Test::Unit, and simply_bdd amongst others.

I'm at the point where I want to test that certain associations are
present.  What I'm not sure of is should I test the association or the
method and return object.

That is, if I wanted to test a has_many should I:

Confirm the methods exist, and that the return an array etc

OR

Check that the model has the named has_many association through it's
reflections.

On one hand the second one looks like it will be a bit more robust, since if
there is a has_many relationship, then all the associated methods may be
used througout the app.  This would put testing in the one place.

On the other hand, this would be really testing the implementation of the
model rather than it's behaviour.   The behaviour is to call @
article.comments and have an array of comments returned.

Any thoughts?
Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070704/8f209d4f/attachment.html 

From aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com  Wed Jul  4 03:54:22 2007
From: aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com (aslak hellesoy)
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 09:54:22 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] testing instance variables that are set inside
	views
In-Reply-To: <468A954E.2060704@videotron.ca>
References: <468576DB.7060803@vanderbilt.edu>
	<8d961d900706300052n47b6798ci16a2d0b5667ccd42@mail.gmail.com>
	<468A954E.2060704@videotron.ca>
Message-ID: <8d961d900707040054r18c6d604pae2f291b2aec14@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/3/07, Patrick Ritchie <pritchie at videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
>  I think @header may not be an implementation detail in this case.
>
>  If your layout looks like this:
>
>  ...
>  <head>
>  <title><%= @header || 'Default Title' %></title>
>  </head>
>  ...
>
>  And the view we are testing looks like this:
>
>  ...
>  <h1><%= @header = 'Specific Title'></h1>
>  ...
>
>  Then setting @header is an essential behavior for the view spec.
>
>  Or am I missing something?
>

Before I can answer about how to test this with RSpec, I need to
understand what's going on in the code. Isn't the head part of the
layout evaluated before the body? If that's the case, what's the point
of assigning the @header variable in the view? It wouldn't change the
title anyway.

Aslak

>  Cheers!
>  Patrick
>
>
>  @header is an implementation detail of your view that you shouldn't
> care about in your view spec at all. I recommend you use the have_tag
> matcher instead to verify what content gets rendered as expected.
>
> Aslak
>
> On 6/29/07, Jeremy Stephens
> <jeremy.f.stephens at vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>
>
>  Hi all,
>
> In my view specs (for Rails), how can I get at instance variables that
> are set within my view? For example, if my view looks like this:
>
> <% @header = "My Header" -%>
> <div>some content</div>
>
> How can I get to @header from within my view spec? I've tried @header
> and assigns[:header] to no avail.
>
> TIA,
> Jeremy
>
> --
> Jeremy Stephens Computer Systems Analyst I School of Medicine
>  Department of Biostatistics Vanderbilt University
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Wed Jul  4 04:42:01 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 09:42:01 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Aspects in RSpec 1.0.5
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707020222p16330702u3befb471a3ddf26c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3CDEC40C-9326-4424-9667-5EC656CD1C3F@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<57c63afe0706270857k317b943cg2b87184baebcc155@mail.gmail.com>
	<C360A30C-F8E1-4A09-9834-9C32C10DC5FE@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<57c63afe0707020222p16330702u3befb471a3ddf26c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0FE18859-1EFF-4968-B566-5AB445B4CAF8@ashleymoran.me.uk>


On 2 Jul 2007, at 10:22, David Chelimsky wrote:

> IIRC, part of the facet idea was to prepend the facet text to the
> descriptive string:
>
> describe XP do
>   facet "pair programming" do
>     it "should work better when team members have breath mints" do
>     end
>   end
> end
>
> XP
> - (pair programming) should work better when team members have  
> breath mints

I never knew that :)

>
> So you could write examples that describe the behaviour's  
> description string.

I'll have another go this weekend, again if I get chance...

Just to clear something up, can you define Behaviour and Example for  
me?  When I went through the code I got the impression that a  
Behaviour is everything in the "describe" block and an Example is  
everything in an "it" block.

Ashley


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul  4 07:09:00 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 06:09:00 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Aspects in RSpec 1.0.5
In-Reply-To: <0FE18859-1EFF-4968-B566-5AB445B4CAF8@ashleymoran.me.uk>
References: <3CDEC40C-9326-4424-9667-5EC656CD1C3F@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<57c63afe0706270857k317b943cg2b87184baebcc155@mail.gmail.com>
	<C360A30C-F8E1-4A09-9834-9C32C10DC5FE@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<57c63afe0707020222p16330702u3befb471a3ddf26c@mail.gmail.com>
	<0FE18859-1EFF-4968-B566-5AB445B4CAF8@ashleymoran.me.uk>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707040409s4ccfe6daib4512fadbd9d33da@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/4/07, Ashley Moran <work at ashleymoran.me.uk> wrote:
>
> On 2 Jul 2007, at 10:22, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> > IIRC, part of the facet idea was to prepend the facet text to the
> > descriptive string:
> >
> > describe XP do
> >   facet "pair programming" do
> >     it "should work better when team members have breath mints" do
> >     end
> >   end
> > end
> >
> > XP
> > - (pair programming) should work better when team members have
> > breath mints
>
> I never knew that :)
>
> >
> > So you could write examples that describe the behaviour's
> > description string.
>
> I'll have another go this weekend, again if I get chance...
>
> Just to clear something up, can you define Behaviour and Example for
> me?  When I went through the code I got the impression that a
> Behaviour is everything in the "describe" block and an Example is
> everything in an "it" block.

That's correct.

>
> Ashley
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From pritchie at videotron.ca  Wed Jul  4 11:35:03 2007
From: pritchie at videotron.ca (Patrick Ritchie)
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:35:03 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] testing instance variables that are set inside
	views
In-Reply-To: <8d961d900707040054r18c6d604pae2f291b2aec14@mail.gmail.com>
References: <468576DB.7060803@vanderbilt.edu>
	<8d961d900706300052n47b6798ci16a2d0b5667ccd42@mail.gmail.com>
	<468A954E.2060704@videotron.ca>
	<8d961d900707040054r18c6d604pae2f291b2aec14@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <468BBE27.4080202@videotron.ca>

aslak hellesoy wrote:
> On 7/3/07, Patrick Ritchie <pritchie at videotron.ca> wrote:
>   
>>  Hi,
>>
>>  I think @header may not be an implementation detail in this case.
>>
>>  If your layout looks like this:
>>
>>  ...
>>  <head>
>>  <title><%= @header || 'Default Title' %></title>
>>  </head>
>>  ...
>>
>>  And the view we are testing looks like this:
>>
>>  ...
>>  <h1><%= @header = 'Specific Title'></h1>
>>  ...
>>
>>  Then setting @header is an essential behavior for the view spec.
>>
>>  Or am I missing something?
>>
>>     
>
> Before I can answer about how to test this with RSpec, I need to
> understand what's going on in the code. Isn't the head part of the
> layout evaluated before the body? If that's the case, what's the point
> of assigning the @header variable in the view? It wouldn't change the
> title anyway
The layout is evaluated after the view so the above code is a useful way 
to include some piece of data in the head without having to initialize 
it in the controller. Very handy for things like head/title or view 
specific onload js etc...

Cheers!
Patrick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070704/4b0e5cf3/attachment.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul  4 11:41:59 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:41:59 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] testing instance variables that are set inside
	views
In-Reply-To: <468BBE27.4080202@videotron.ca>
References: <468576DB.7060803@vanderbilt.edu>
	<8d961d900706300052n47b6798ci16a2d0b5667ccd42@mail.gmail.com>
	<468A954E.2060704@videotron.ca>
	<8d961d900707040054r18c6d604pae2f291b2aec14@mail.gmail.com>
	<468BBE27.4080202@videotron.ca>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707040841p7b88d46cha488c336c66d53d9@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/4/07, Patrick Ritchie <pritchie at videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>  aslak hellesoy wrote:
>  On 7/3/07, Patrick Ritchie <pritchie at videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>  Hi,
>
>  I think @header may not be an implementation detail in this case.
>
>  If your layout looks like this:
>
>  ...
>  <head>
>  <title><%= @header || 'Default Title' %></title>
>  </head>
>  ...
>
>  And the view we are testing looks like this:
>
>  ...
>  <h1><%= @header = 'Specific Title'></h1>
>  ...
>
>  Then setting @header is an essential behavior for the view spec.
>
>  Or am I missing something?
>
>
>  Before I can answer about how to test this with RSpec, I need to
> understand what's going on in the code. Isn't the head part of the
> layout evaluated before the body? If that's the case, what's the point
> of assigning the @header variable in the view? It wouldn't change the
> title anyway
>  The layout is evaluated after the view so the above code is a useful way to
> include some piece of data in the head without having to initialize it in
> the controller. Very handy for things like head/title or view specific
> onload js etc...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the behavior you're
interested in is that the right thing shows up in the title:

response.should have_tag('title', 'whatever I am expecting')

Am I missing something?


>
>  Cheers!
>  Patrick
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From pritchie at videotron.ca  Wed Jul  4 12:09:31 2007
From: pritchie at videotron.ca (Patrick Ritchie)
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:09:31 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] testing instance variables that are set inside
	views
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707040841p7b88d46cha488c336c66d53d9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <468576DB.7060803@vanderbilt.edu>
	<8d961d900706300052n47b6798ci16a2d0b5667ccd42@mail.gmail.com>
	<468A954E.2060704@videotron.ca>
	<8d961d900707040054r18c6d604pae2f291b2aec14@mail.gmail.com>
	<468BBE27.4080202@videotron.ca>
	<57c63afe0707040841p7b88d46cha488c336c66d53d9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <468BC63B.3000805@videotron.ca>

David Chelimsky wrote:
> On 7/4/07, Patrick Ritchie <pritchie at videotron.ca> wrote:
>   
>>  aslak hellesoy wrote:
>>  On 7/3/07, Patrick Ritchie <pritchie at videotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>  Hi,
>>
>>  I think @header may not be an implementation detail in this case.
>>
>>  If your layout looks like this:
>>
>>  ...
>>  <head>
>>  <title><%= @header || 'Default Title' %></title>
>>  </head>
>>  ...
>>
>>  And the view we are testing looks like this:
>>
>>  ...
>>  <h1><%= @header = 'Specific Title'></h1>
>>  ...
>>
>>  Then setting @header is an essential behavior for the view spec.
>>
>>  Or am I missing something?
>>
>>
>>  Before I can answer about how to test this with RSpec, I need to
>> understand what's going on in the code. Isn't the head part of the
>> layout evaluated before the body? If that's the case, what's the point
>> of assigning the @header variable in the view? It wouldn't change the
>> title anyway
>>  The layout is evaluated after the view so the above code is a useful way to
>> include some piece of data in the head without having to initialize it in
>> the controller. Very handy for things like head/title or view specific
>> onload js etc...
>>     
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the behavior you're
> interested in is that the right thing shows up in the title:
>
> response.should have_tag('title', 'whatever I am expecting')
>
> Am I missing something?
>   
I could do that, but that's not the really behavior I'm interested in 
for the view. I'd rather look at the title tag in my layout spec and the 
instance variable in my view.

It doesn't really make a difference in this simple case, but it would if 
the title was inserted from a partial called from the layout, or the 
instance variable was used in multiple places in the layout.

Cheers!
Patrick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070704/624f3d80/attachment.html 

From don at donpetersen.net  Wed Jul  4 07:52:25 2007
From: don at donpetersen.net (Don Petersen)
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 06:52:25 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] testing instance variables that are set inside
	views
In-Reply-To: <468BC63B.3000805@videotron.ca>
References: <468576DB.7060803@vanderbilt.edu>
	<8d961d900706300052n47b6798ci16a2d0b5667ccd42@mail.gmail.com>
	<468A954E.2060704@videotron.ca>
	<8d961d900707040054r18c6d604pae2f291b2aec14@mail.gmail.com>
	<468BBE27.4080202@videotron.ca>
	<57c63afe0707040841p7b88d46cha488c336c66d53d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<468BC63B.3000805@videotron.ca>
Message-ID: <BC52DDAF-6C93-4496-88AE-4255D155F62A@donpetersen.net>

I can sympathize with not wanting to just verify the final html  
output, even though it would probably be sufficient in this simple case.

I'm a big fan of helpers for any logic in views, even simple stuff  
like this.  If you had a couple of methods in your ApplicationHelper  
that handled setting and getting the page title value, that would be  
very easy to test.

Approaching it this way, you can use the helper specs to verify that  
the actual set/get logic worked.  You can even take that whole 'title  
= @header || "Default Title"' logic out of your layout if you wanted,  
and put it in the helper where you're only testing that logic and  
nothing more.

So in your view spec, where you had previously been wanting to test  
if an instance variable had been set, now you just need to verify  
that the helper method was called.  Like so:
@controller.template.should_receive(:set_page_title)

That's how I have done this very logic in the past, and it feels  
right to me.

Alternately, if you don't want to use helpers, you might use  
"content_for"(http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActionView/Helpers/ 
CaptureHelper.html).  It's probably overkill for just a basic string  
like this, but maybe you can rig it to work in this case.

Don

On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Patrick Ritchie wrote:

> David Chelimsky wrote:
>> On 7/4/07, Patrick Ritchie <pritchie at videotron.ca> wrote:
>>> aslak hellesoy wrote: On 7/3/07, Patrick Ritchie  
>>> <pritchie at videotron.ca> wrote: Hi, I think @header may not be an  
>>> implementation detail in this case. If your layout looks like  
>>> this: ... ... And the view we are testing looks like this: ... <% 
>>> = @header = 'Specific Title'> ... Then setting @header is an  
>>> essential behavior for the view spec. Or am I missing something?  
>>> Before I can answer about how to test this with RSpec, I need to  
>>> understand what's going on in the code. Isn't the head part of  
>>> the layout evaluated before the body? If that's the case, what's  
>>> the point of assigning the @header variable in the view? It  
>>> wouldn't change the title anyway The layout is evaluated after  
>>> the view so the above code is a useful way to include some piece  
>>> of data in the head without having to initialize it in the  
>>> controller. Very handy for things like head/title or view  
>>> specific onload js etc...
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the behavior  
>> you're interested in is that the right thing shows up in the  
>> title: response.should have_tag('title', 'whatever I am  
>> expecting') Am I missing something?
> I could do that, but that's not the really behavior I'm interested  
> in for the view. I'd rather look at the title tag in my layout spec  
> and the instance variable in my view.
>
> It doesn't really make a difference in this simple case, but it  
> would if the title was inserted from a partial called from the  
> layout, or the instance variable was used in multiple places in the  
> layout.
>
> Cheers!
> Patrick
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From pritchie at videotron.ca  Wed Jul  4 13:55:20 2007
From: pritchie at videotron.ca (Patrick Ritchie)
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:55:20 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] testing instance variables that are set inside
	views
In-Reply-To: <BC52DDAF-6C93-4496-88AE-4255D155F62A@donpetersen.net>
References: <468576DB.7060803@vanderbilt.edu>
	<8d961d900706300052n47b6798ci16a2d0b5667ccd42@mail.gmail.com>
	<468A954E.2060704@videotron.ca>
	<8d961d900707040054r18c6d604pae2f291b2aec14@mail.gmail.com>
	<468BBE27.4080202@videotron.ca>
	<57c63afe0707040841p7b88d46cha488c336c66d53d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<468BC63B.3000805@videotron.ca>
	<BC52DDAF-6C93-4496-88AE-4255D155F62A@donpetersen.net>
Message-ID: <468BDF08.5040209@videotron.ca>

Hi Don,

Thanks for the tip! That looks like a great way to handle this case.

So what does everybody think, is this the definitive answer for setting 
instance variables in your views? (use a helper) or are their cases 
where we may still want to check instance variables in view specs?

Cheers!
Patrick
> I can sympathize with not wanting to just verify the final html  
> output, even though it would probably be sufficient in this simple case.
>
> I'm a big fan of helpers for any logic in views, even simple stuff  
> like this.  If you had a couple of methods in your ApplicationHelper  
> that handled setting and getting the page title value, that would be  
> very easy to test.
>
> Approaching it this way, you can use the helper specs to verify that  
> the actual set/get logic worked.  You can even take that whole 'title  
> = @header || "Default Title"' logic out of your layout if you wanted,  
> and put it in the helper where you're only testing that logic and  
> nothing more.
>
> So in your view spec, where you had previously been wanting to test  
> if an instance variable had been set, now you just need to verify  
> that the helper method was called.  Like so:
> @controller.template.should_receive(:set_page_title)
>
> That's how I have done this very logic in the past, and it feels  
> right to me.
>
> Alternately, if you don't want to use helpers, you might use  
> "content_for"(http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActionView/Helpers/ 
> CaptureHelper.html).  It's probably overkill for just a basic string  
> like this, but maybe you can rig it to work in this case.
>
> Don
>
> On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Patrick Ritchie wrote:
>
>   
>> David Chelimsky wrote:
>>     
>>> On 7/4/07, Patrick Ritchie <pritchie at videotron.ca> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> aslak hellesoy wrote: On 7/3/07, Patrick Ritchie  
>>>> <pritchie at videotron.ca> wrote: Hi, I think @header may not be an  
>>>> implementation detail in this case. If your layout looks like  
>>>> this: ... ... And the view we are testing looks like this: ... <% 
>>>> = @header = 'Specific Title'> ... Then setting @header is an  
>>>> essential behavior for the view spec. Or am I missing something?  
>>>> Before I can answer about how to test this with RSpec, I need to  
>>>> understand what's going on in the code. Isn't the head part of  
>>>> the layout evaluated before the body? If that's the case, what's  
>>>> the point of assigning the @header variable in the view? It  
>>>> wouldn't change the title anyway The layout is evaluated after  
>>>> the view so the above code is a useful way to include some piece  
>>>> of data in the head without having to initialize it in the  
>>>> controller. Very handy for things like head/title or view  
>>>> specific onload js etc...
>>>>         
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the behavior  
>>> you're interested in is that the right thing shows up in the  
>>> title: response.should have_tag('title', 'whatever I am  
>>> expecting') Am I missing something?
>>>       
>> I could do that, but that's not the really behavior I'm interested  
>> in for the view. I'd rather look at the title tag in my layout spec  
>> and the instance variable in my view.
>>
>> It doesn't really make a difference in this simple case, but it  
>> would if the title was inserted from a partial called from the  
>> layout, or the instance variable was used in multiple places in the  
>> layout.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Patrick
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070704/ebf47d56/attachment.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul  4 14:02:11 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 13:02:11 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] testing instance variables that are set inside
	views
In-Reply-To: <468BDF08.5040209@videotron.ca>
References: <468576DB.7060803@vanderbilt.edu>
	<8d961d900706300052n47b6798ci16a2d0b5667ccd42@mail.gmail.com>
	<468A954E.2060704@videotron.ca>
	<8d961d900707040054r18c6d604pae2f291b2aec14@mail.gmail.com>
	<468BBE27.4080202@videotron.ca>
	<57c63afe0707040841p7b88d46cha488c336c66d53d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<468BC63B.3000805@videotron.ca>
	<BC52DDAF-6C93-4496-88AE-4255D155F62A@donpetersen.net>
	<468BDF08.5040209@videotron.ca>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707041102o4e06279cwc1f076e2e5931915@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/4/07, Patrick Ritchie <pritchie at videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>  Hi Don,
>
>  Thanks for the tip! That looks like a great way to handle this case.
>
>  So what does everybody think, is this the definitive answer for setting
> instance variables in your views? (use a helper) or are their cases where we
> may still want to check instance variables in view specs?

>From a design perspective, conventional wisdom suggests that you don't
put any decision making or control in your views. Doing this in
helpers is the Rails Way.

>From a practical perspective, there is no direct support for accessing
instance variables in views in rspec, so the helper route seems to be
the path of least resistance. Of course, you could always use
instance_eval. This IS Ruby, after all. But I wouldn't recommend it.

Cheers,
David

>
>  Cheers!
>  Patrick
>
>
>  I can sympathize with not wanting to just verify the final html
> output, even though it would probably be sufficient in this simple case.
>
> I'm a big fan of helpers for any logic in views, even simple stuff
> like this. If you had a couple of methods in your ApplicationHelper
> that handled setting and getting the page title value, that would be
> very easy to test.
>
> Approaching it this way, you can use the helper specs to verify that
> the actual set/get logic worked. You can even take that whole 'title
> = @header || "Default Title"' logic out of your layout if you wanted,
> and put it in the helper where you're only testing that logic and
> nothing more.
>
> So in your view spec, where you had previously been wanting to test
> if an instance variable had been set, now you just need to verify
> that the helper method was called. Like so:
> @controller.template.should_receive(:set_page_title)
>
> That's how I have done this very logic in the past, and it feels
> right to me.
>
> Alternately, if you don't want to use helpers, you might use
> "content_for"(http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActionView/Helpers/
> CaptureHelper.html). It's probably overkill for just a basic string
> like this, but maybe you can rig it to work in this case.
>
> Don
>
> On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Patrick Ritchie wrote:
>
>
>
>  David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>
>  On 7/4/07, Patrick Ritchie <pritchie at videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>  aslak hellesoy wrote: On 7/3/07, Patrick Ritchie
> <pritchie at videotron.ca> wrote: Hi, I think @header may not be an
> implementation detail in this case. If your layout looks like
> this: ... ... And the view we are testing looks like this: ... <%
> = @header = 'Specific Title'> ... Then setting @header is an
> essential behavior for the view spec. Or am I missing something?
> Before I can answer about how to test this with RSpec, I need to
> understand what's going on in the code. Isn't the head part of
> the layout evaluated before the body? If that's the case, what's
> the point of assigning the @header variable in the view? It
> wouldn't change the title anyway The layout is evaluated after
> the view so the above code is a useful way to include some piece
> of data in the head without having to initialize it in the
> controller. Very handy for things like head/title or view
> specific onload js etc...
>
>  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the behavior
> you're interested in is that the right thing shows up in the
> title: response.should have_tag('title', 'whatever I am
> expecting') Am I missing something?
>
>  I could do that, but that's not the really behavior I'm interested
> in for the view. I'd rather look at the title tag in my layout spec
> and the instance variable in my view.
>
> It doesn't really make a difference in this simple case, but it
> would if the title was inserted from a partial called from the
> layout, or the instance variable was used in multiple places in the
> layout.
>
> Cheers!
> Patrick
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
>  _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From win at wincent.com  Thu Jul  5 04:28:22 2007
From: win at wincent.com (Wincent Colaiuta)
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 10:28:22 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Nicer failure message formatting
In-Reply-To: <190A2F5D-96D3-49D2-805A-4B8209B32F53@wincent.com>
References: <FCC75AB0-FC9B-4398-90F5-9F88D8F07240@hobocentral.net>
	<190A2F5D-96D3-49D2-805A-4B8209B32F53@wincent.com>
Message-ID: <389B0522-7590-4B3D-AC88-162B80BC9F1E@wincent.com>

El 22/6/2007, a las 15:34, Wincent Colaiuta escribi?:

> El 22/6/2007, a las 14:36, Tom Locke escribi?:
>
>> Easier to read:
>>
>> expected:
>> "this is a very long string blah blah"
>> got:
>> "this is a very very long string blah blah"
>> (using ==)
>>
>> Comments?
>
> For me even easier to read would be:
>
> expected: "this is a very long string blah blah"
> got     : "this is a very very long string blah blah"
> (using ==)

I've whipped up a patch for this against the current trunk (r2153). I  
was sick of seeing output like this:

<http://pastie.textmate.org/76179>

Now I see output like this:

<http://pastie.textmate.org/76180>

So for really short strings ("foo" vs "bar") readability is about the  
same, and for longer strings like the ones in the linked examples the  
readability is much improved. For *really* long strings (which wrap  
over multiple lines) readability in the console still sucks. You can  
see this for yourself by resizing your browser window to see how  
readability goes down as soon as wrapping starts to take place.

But this is still a big improvement. If you run your specs from  
inside TextMate then even long strings are much more readable,  
because SpecMate doesn't perform soft wrapping of long lines when  
showing diffs.

Pasting the diff here:

<http://pastie.textmate.org/76181>

Will also try submitting via RubyForge, but I have a lot of troubling  
logging in thanks to the transparent proxy imposed by my ISP... :-(

Cheers,
Wincent


From win at wincent.com  Thu Jul  5 04:32:53 2007
From: win at wincent.com (Wincent Colaiuta)
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 10:32:53 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Nicer failure message formatting
In-Reply-To: <389B0522-7590-4B3D-AC88-162B80BC9F1E@wincent.com>
References: <FCC75AB0-FC9B-4398-90F5-9F88D8F07240@hobocentral.net>
	<190A2F5D-96D3-49D2-805A-4B8209B32F53@wincent.com>
	<389B0522-7590-4B3D-AC88-162B80BC9F1E@wincent.com>
Message-ID: <B44881B7-6828-41A2-8ECE-5AA3EC53F04D@wincent.com>

El 5/7/2007, a las 10:28, Wincent Colaiuta escribi?:

> Pasting the diff here:
>
> <http://pastie.textmate.org/76181>
>
> Will also try submitting via RubyForge, but I have a lot of troubling
> logging in thanks to the transparent proxy imposed by my ISP... :-(

Managed to stay logged in long enough to get it submitted:

<http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php? 
func=detail&aid=12010&group_id=797&atid=3151>

Cheers,
Wincent


From has.sox at gmail.com  Thu Jul  5 09:28:28 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 23:28:28 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] mocking methods in the controller.
Message-ID: <2fff50390707050628i55391c60v75ea4b1b12e1311c@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm very new to rspec so please be patient with me.

I've tried to take some of my tests out of the controller specs to check for
things that are rendered.

This has not worked so well, since my views have the controller method

current_user

in quite a few places.

Is there any way that I can define this so that my views will be executed?
Will this same thing occur for all helper methods that are definied in the
controller?

Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070705/1a8e6a3a/attachment.html 

From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Thu Jul  5 11:30:09 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 16:30:09 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Fwd: argument constraints docs on www site
References: <418CA05B-B966-472B-BE3E-EAFDDC6AF2B3@codeweavers.net>
Message-ID: <C1D1AD28-95D3-496B-8EDB-C1F226F2BADD@ashleymoran.me.uk>

Hi

Thought I had found an actual issue here but turned out it was me  
being an idiot.  In the process though, I noticed that the rspec page  
docs say you should use ":anything" rather than "anything()",  
although it is deprecated.  Any reason for that or does it just need  
updating?

Ashley


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul  5 11:40:37 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 10:40:37 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Fwd: argument constraints docs on www site
In-Reply-To: <C1D1AD28-95D3-496B-8EDB-C1F226F2BADD@ashleymoran.me.uk>
References: <418CA05B-B966-472B-BE3E-EAFDDC6AF2B3@codeweavers.net>
	<C1D1AD28-95D3-496B-8EDB-C1F226F2BADD@ashleymoran.me.uk>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707050840r7ca7e70ah383e860e4bc7d7f6@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/5/07, Ashley Moran <work at ashleymoran.me.uk> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Thought I had found an actual issue here but turned out it was me
> being an idiot.  In the process though, I noticed that the rspec page
> docs say you should use ":anything" rather than "anything()",
> although it is deprecated.  Any reason for that or does it just need
> updating?

It's updated in the trunk docs, so it'll get updated when we release
1.0.6. We don't generally update the site between releases because
it's a hassle to manage.

>
> Ashley
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From ashley.moran at codeweavers.net  Thu Jul  5 10:36:01 2007
From: ashley.moran at codeweavers.net (Ashley Moran)
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 15:36:01 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] argument constraints docs on www site
Message-ID: <418CA05B-B966-472B-BE3E-EAFDDC6AF2B3@codeweavers.net>

Hi

Thought I had found an actual issue here but turned out it was me  
being an idiot.  In the process though, I noticed that the rspec page  
docs say you should use ":anything" rather than "anything()",  
although it is deprecated.  Any reason for that or does it just need  
updating?

Ashley



--

?If only we?d been written in Ruby.?
Steve from Urbis upon hearing that the junk segment ?ALU? is repeated  
300,000 times in the human genome

Codeweavers Ltd (Registered in England and Wales No. 04092394. VAT  
registration no. 823826816)
Address: Unit 11, Imex Technology Park, ST4 8LJ.     Tel: 0870 443 0888




From cwdinfo at gmail.com  Thu Jul  5 15:09:15 2007
From: cwdinfo at gmail.com (s.ross)
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:09:15 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Wording describe/it so specdocs look good
In-Reply-To: <c96c19520706280121o530e5b0bi8b3ce4d6a2f27c8e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c96c19520706280121o530e5b0bi8b3ce4d6a2f27c8e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <103B3F02-F94B-4BED-80B0-31ECD1006BBD@gmail.com>

I'm looking through my specs and they work great, but they don't read  
as English. I'm wondering how others are phrasing these. Here are  
some examples:

describe Agent do
   it 'should be possible to create one' do
   end
end

This reads as "Agent should be possible to create one". Any  
suggestions how the describe/it might better be worded?

Thx

From edward.og at gmail.com  Thu Jul  5 15:19:59 2007
From: edward.og at gmail.com (Edward Ocampo-Gooding)
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:19:59 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Wording describe/it so specdocs look good
In-Reply-To: <103B3F02-F94B-4BED-80B0-31ECD1006BBD@gmail.com>
References: <c96c19520706280121o530e5b0bi8b3ce4d6a2f27c8e@mail.gmail.com>
	<103B3F02-F94B-4BED-80B0-31ECD1006BBD@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <468D445F.9070507@gmail.com>

> I'm looking through my specs and they work great, but they don't read  
> as English. I'm wondering how others are phrasing these. Here are  
> some examples:
> 
> describe Agent do
>    it 'should be possible to create one' do
>    end
> end

Does

describe Agent do
   it 'should be createable' do
	# stuff
   end
end

work for you?

From cwdinfo at gmail.com  Thu Jul  5 15:39:27 2007
From: cwdinfo at gmail.com (s.ross)
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:39:27 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Wording describe/it so specdocs look good
In-Reply-To: <468D445F.9070507@gmail.com>
References: <c96c19520706280121o530e5b0bi8b3ce4d6a2f27c8e@mail.gmail.com>
	<103B3F02-F94B-4BED-80B0-31ECD1006BBD@gmail.com>
	<468D445F.9070507@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56ECC68B-4B02-497F-BEEA-AD795F6B2D10@gmail.com>

For that simple case, yes. But how about the case where I specify:

Agent "should not be possible for the same user to rate the same  
agent twice with same kind of transaction"

The English grammar gets a bit twisty. Perhaps:

Agent "should not allow the same user to rate the same agent twice  
with the same kind of transaction"

Thoughts?


On Jul 5, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Edward Ocampo-Gooding wrote:

>> I'm looking through my specs and they work great, but they don't read
>> as English. I'm wondering how others are phrasing these. Here are
>> some examples:
>>
>> describe Agent do
>>    it 'should be possible to create one' do
>>    end
>> end
>
> Does
>
> describe Agent do
>    it 'should be createable' do
> 	# stuff
>    end
> end
>
> work for you?
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul  5 15:52:46 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 14:52:46 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Wording describe/it so specdocs look good
In-Reply-To: <56ECC68B-4B02-497F-BEEA-AD795F6B2D10@gmail.com>
References: <c96c19520706280121o530e5b0bi8b3ce4d6a2f27c8e@mail.gmail.com>
	<103B3F02-F94B-4BED-80B0-31ECD1006BBD@gmail.com>
	<468D445F.9070507@gmail.com>
	<56ECC68B-4B02-497F-BEEA-AD795F6B2D10@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707051252o6c248babw56aa3f76b2ecf292@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/5/07, s.ross <cwdinfo at gmail.com> wrote:
> For that simple case, yes. But how about the case where I specify:
>
> Agent "should not be possible for the same user to rate the same
> agent twice with same kind of transaction"
>
> The English grammar gets a bit twisty. Perhaps:
>
> Agent "should not allow the same user to rate the same agent twice
> with the same kind of transaction"
>
> Thoughts?

How would you phrase all this with context/specify? Or, a bit further
off target, TestCase/test_method?

>
>
> On Jul 5, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Edward Ocampo-Gooding wrote:
>
> >> I'm looking through my specs and they work great, but they don't read
> >> as English. I'm wondering how others are phrasing these. Here are
> >> some examples:
> >>
> >> describe Agent do
> >>    it 'should be possible to create one' do
> >>    end
> >> end
> >
> > Does
> >
> > describe Agent do
> >    it 'should be createable' do
> >       # stuff
> >    end
> > end
> >
> > work for you?
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From cwdinfo at gmail.com  Thu Jul  5 16:06:41 2007
From: cwdinfo at gmail.com (s.ross)
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 13:06:41 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Wording describe/it so specdocs look good
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707051252o6c248babw56aa3f76b2ecf292@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c96c19520706280121o530e5b0bi8b3ce4d6a2f27c8e@mail.gmail.com>
	<103B3F02-F94B-4BED-80B0-31ECD1006BBD@gmail.com>
	<468D445F.9070507@gmail.com>
	<56ECC68B-4B02-497F-BEEA-AD795F6B2D10@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707051252o6c248babw56aa3f76b2ecf292@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F70F8E08-779D-4584-A985-8468A41FA96C@gmail.com>


On Jul 5, 2007, at 12:52 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:

>> Agent "should not allow the same user to rate the same agent twice
>> with the same kind of transaction"
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> How would you phrase all this with context/specify? Or, a bit further
> off target, TestCase/test_method?
>

I wouldn't phrase it differently with context/specify and with  
TestCase/test_method, I'd probably care less because I wouldn't have  
been trained to create beautiful, self-documenting example  
descriptions :)

I'm just thinking there must be a nicer way to express what I mean.

From edward.og at gmail.com  Thu Jul  5 16:24:40 2007
From: edward.og at gmail.com (Edward Ocampo-Gooding)
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:24:40 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Wording describe/it so specdocs look good
In-Reply-To: <56ECC68B-4B02-497F-BEEA-AD795F6B2D10@gmail.com>
References: <c96c19520706280121o530e5b0bi8b3ce4d6a2f27c8e@mail.gmail.com>	<103B3F02-F94B-4BED-80B0-31ECD1006BBD@gmail.com>	<468D445F.9070507@gmail.com>
	<56ECC68B-4B02-497F-BEEA-AD795F6B2D10@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <468D5388.8080603@gmail.com>

Does this work?

describe Agent, "rated by a user with the same kind of transaction" do
   it 'should not be rated twice' do
     # stuff
   end
end

s.ross wrote:
> For that simple case, yes. But how about the case where I specify:
> 
> Agent "should not be possible for the same user to rate the same  
> agent twice with same kind of transaction"
> 
> The English grammar gets a bit twisty. Perhaps:
> 
> Agent "should not allow the same user to rate the same agent twice  
> with the same kind of transaction"
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> On Jul 5, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Edward Ocampo-Gooding wrote:
> 
>>> I'm looking through my specs and they work great, but they don't read
>>> as English. I'm wondering how others are phrasing these. Here are
>>> some examples:
>>>
>>> describe Agent do
>>>    it 'should be possible to create one' do
>>>    end
>>> end
>> Does
>>
>> describe Agent do
>>    it 'should be createable' do
>> 	# stuff
>>    end
>> end
>>
>> work for you?
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> 

From don at donpetersen.net  Thu Jul  5 16:25:28 2007
From: don at donpetersen.net (Don Petersen)
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 15:25:28 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Wording describe/it so specdocs look good
In-Reply-To: <F70F8E08-779D-4584-A985-8468A41FA96C@gmail.com>
References: <c96c19520706280121o530e5b0bi8b3ce4d6a2f27c8e@mail.gmail.com>
	<103B3F02-F94B-4BED-80B0-31ECD1006BBD@gmail.com>
	<468D445F.9070507@gmail.com>
	<56ECC68B-4B02-497F-BEEA-AD795F6B2D10@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707051252o6c248babw56aa3f76b2ecf292@mail.gmail.com>
	<F70F8E08-779D-4584-A985-8468A41FA96C@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <753DD095-4ECE-48F9-B4D1-31A59450ACEC@donpetersen.net>

I have no idea what the business logic is, but I guess I see a few  
words there which could be more concise.

"should not allow" could become "disallows".  Not much shorter, but I  
don't think it's written anywhere that everything must to start with  
"should"?

"the same user to rate the same agent twice" could become "duplicate  
ratings"

So maybe:
Agent disallows duplicate ratings of the same transaction type

Again I'm just taking a wild shot in the dark about your business  
logic from that description.  I don't mention "user" or "agent" in  
mine.  But we're already describing Agent, and can anything but a  
User rate an agent?  If only a User can, do you even need to specify  
that it's a User who is doing the rating?

I do find exercises like this where you have to try and describe your  
problem domain succinctly helps to understand it, and to be able to  
talk to another developer or your customer intelligently about it.

Don

On Jul 5, 2007, at 3:06 PM, s.ross wrote:

>
> On Jul 5, 2007, at 12:52 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>>> Agent "should not allow the same user to rate the same agent twice
>>> with the same kind of transaction"
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> How would you phrase all this with context/specify? Or, a bit further
>> off target, TestCase/test_method?
>>
>
> I wouldn't phrase it differently with context/specify and with
> TestCase/test_method, I'd probably care less because I wouldn't have
> been trained to create beautiful, self-documenting example
> descriptions :)
>
> I'm just thinking there must be a nicer way to express what I mean.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From crafterm at gmail.com  Fri Jul  6 02:11:30 2007
From: crafterm at gmail.com (Marcus Crafter)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 16:11:30 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Edge, link_to and mocks
Message-ID: <B1DA821A-849F-4259-8FC4-0A716C0D2DC4@gmail.com>

Hi All,

Anyone noticed that using the newer link_to syntax in edge currently  
fails with mocked objects in view specs or helpers.

eg. if you have something like the following in your view (or  
equivalent in a helper):

	<%= link_to @dog.name, @dog %>

as opposed to the current 1.2 syntax:

	<%= link_to @dog.name, dog_path(@dog) %>

Using a mock_model as the 'dog' will raise a:

	undefined method `polymorphic_path' for [Dynamically generated class  
for RSpec example]:#<Class:0x26814f4>

error - I presume due to the introspection on the @dog object to find  
out what kind of class it is to create it's URL.

Anyone worked around this at all, other than using the older syntax?  
Any ideas appreciated.

Cheers,

Marcus

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul  6 03:00:28 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 02:00:28 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Edge, link_to and mocks
In-Reply-To: <B1DA821A-849F-4259-8FC4-0A716C0D2DC4@gmail.com>
References: <B1DA821A-849F-4259-8FC4-0A716C0D2DC4@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707060000i5b5fef29l5e017e22c4db3739@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/07, Marcus Crafter <crafterm at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Anyone noticed that using the newer link_to syntax in edge currently
> fails with mocked objects in view specs or helpers.
>
> eg. if you have something like the following in your view (or
> equivalent in a helper):
>
>         <%= link_to @dog.name, @dog %>
>
> as opposed to the current 1.2 syntax:
>
>         <%= link_to @dog.name, dog_path(@dog) %>
>
> Using a mock_model as the 'dog' will raise a:
>
>         undefined method `polymorphic_path' for [Dynamically generated class
> for RSpec example]:#<Class:0x26814f4>
>
> error - I presume due to the introspection on the @dog object to find
> out what kind of class it is to create it's URL.
>
> Anyone worked around this at all, other than using the older syntax?
> Any ideas appreciated.

All mock_model does is that it wraps mock, adding some method stubs.
So you can do this:

thing = mock_model(Thing)
thing.polymorphic_path = 'whatever'
...

Also - please report this sort of thing to rspec's tracker:

http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?group_id=797

>
> Cheers,
>
> Marcus
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul  6 03:07:40 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 02:07:40 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing Rails Associations
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707032138y9ba5542pd92087d78ae33712@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707032138y9ba5542pd92087d78ae33712@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707060007n467399d7r7987fa92a849f953@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/3/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  I'm very new to rspec, so if this is not the right forum please let me
> know.
>
>  I'm starting to spec my models first in an existing rails app, porting from
> a mix of Test::Unit, and simply_bdd amongst others.
>
>  I'm at the point where I want to test that certain associations are
> present.  What I'm not sure of is should I test the association or the
> method and return object.
>
>  That is, if I wanted to test a has_many should I:
>
>  Confirm the methods exist, and that the return an array etc
>
>  OR
>
>  Check that the model has the named has_many association through it's
> reflections.
>
>  On one hand the second one looks like it will be a bit more robust, since
> if there is a has_many relationship, then all the associated methods may be
> used througout the app.  This would put testing in the one place.
>
>  On the other hand, this would be really testing the implementation of the
> model rather than it's behaviour.   The behaviour is to call
> @article.comments and have an array of comments returned.
>
>  Any thoughts?

I think the jury is still out on this one. Both approaches present
problems, and no better approaches have been proposed. I'd say try it
both ways and report back on experiences.

David

>  Cheers
>  Daniel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul  6 03:11:14 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 02:11:14 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] mocking methods in the controller.
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707050628i55391c60v75ea4b1b12e1311c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707050628i55391c60v75ea4b1b12e1311c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707060011w1c5d35e9l293e075dab359bd7@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/5/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm very new to rspec so please be patient with me.
>
> I've tried to take some of my tests out of the controller specs to check for
> things that are rendered.
>
> This has not worked so well, since my views have the controller method
>
> current_user
>
> in quite a few places.
>
> Is there any way that I can define this so that my views will be executed?
> Will this same thing occur for all helper methods that are definied in the
> controller?

If I understand you correctly, you are trying to take tests for views
that were previously rails functional tests and turn them into rspec
view examples. If that is the case, you should be able to do this:

template.stub!(:current_user).and_return(mock_model(User))

If not, please provide an explicit example so we can better understand
what you're talking about.

Cheers,
David

>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From has.sox at gmail.com  Fri Jul  6 03:35:13 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 17:35:13 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] mocking methods in the controller.
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707060011w1c5d35e9l293e075dab359bd7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707050628i55391c60v75ea4b1b12e1311c@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707060011w1c5d35e9l293e075dab359bd7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707060035nb036c50qe4440feb836f5076@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/5/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm very new to rspec so please be patient with me.
> >
> > I've tried to take some of my tests out of the controller specs to check
> for
> > things that are rendered.
> >
> > This has not worked so well, since my views have the controller method
> >
> > current_user
> >
> > in quite a few places.
> >
> > Is there any way that I can define this so that my views will be
> executed?
> > Will this same thing occur for all helper methods that are definied in
> the
> > controller?
>
> If I understand you correctly, you are trying to take tests for views
> that were previously rails functional tests and turn them into rspec
> view examples. If that is the case, you should be able to do this:
>
> template.stub!(:current_user).and_return(mock_model(User))
>
> If not, please provide an explicit example so we can better understand
> what you're talking about.
>
> Cheers,
> David



Thanx David,

That looks like what I was looking for.

I will try it when I get home.

Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070706/d0825410/attachment.html 

From has.sox at gmail.com  Fri Jul  6 03:49:52 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 17:49:52 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing Rails Associations
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707060007n467399d7r7987fa92a849f953@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707032138y9ba5542pd92087d78ae33712@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707060007n467399d7r7987fa92a849f953@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707060049l17ecd756h7d8874c7989f0999@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/3/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >  I'm very new to rspec, so if this is not the right forum please let me
> > know.
> >
> >  I'm starting to spec my models first in an existing rails app, porting
> from
> > a mix of Test::Unit, and simply_bdd amongst others.
> >
> >  I'm at the point where I want to test that certain associations are
> > present.  What I'm not sure of is should I test the association or the
> > method and return object.
> >
> >  That is, if I wanted to test a has_many should I:
> >
> >  Confirm the methods exist, and that the return an array etc
> >
> >  OR
> >
> >  Check that the model has the named has_many association through it's
> > reflections.
> >
> >  On one hand the second one looks like it will be a bit more robust,
> since
> > if there is a has_many relationship, then all the associated methods may
> be
> > used througout the app.  This would put testing in the one place.
> >
> >  On the other hand, this would be really testing the implementation of
> the
> > model rather than it's behaviour.   The behaviour is to call
> > @article.comments and have an array of comments returned.
> >
> >  Any thoughts?
>
> I think the jury is still out on this one. Both approaches present
> problems, and no better approaches have been proposed. I'd say try it
> both ways and report back on experiences.
>
> David
>
> >  Cheers
> >  Daniel
> >


I went with the second way, testing the association through reflections.
The reason I did this is that by testing that there is a has_* or belongs_to
you are really testing the availablity of all the assoicated methods.  Which
you are then free to use throughout your app.

If you go the other way, you are not in fact testing if a model "has_many"
since this implies that all has_many methods will be included, not just
returning and setting an Array.

If your interested I've put up the module that I am using to provide these
and a couple of other methods on pastie.  This is my first go so please
don't expect anything spectacular.

http://pastie.caboo.se/76462

Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070706/0cef0276/attachment.html 

From has.sox at gmail.com  Fri Jul  6 04:40:52 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:40:52 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing Rails Associations
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707060049l17ecd756h7d8874c7989f0999@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707032138y9ba5542pd92087d78ae33712@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707060007n467399d7r7987fa92a849f953@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707060049l17ecd756h7d8874c7989f0999@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707060140p59c91492sb8667c81704d794c@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/6/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/3/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >  I'm very new to rspec, so if this is not the right forum please let me
> > > know.
> > >
> > >  I'm starting to spec my models first in an existing rails app, porting
> from
> > > a mix of Test::Unit, and simply_bdd amongst others.
> > >
> > >  I'm at the point where I want to test that certain associations are
> > > present.  What I'm not sure of is should I test the association or the
> > > method and return object.
> > >
> > >  That is, if I wanted to test a has_many should I:
> > >
> > >  Confirm the methods exist, and that the return an array etc
> > >
> > >  OR
> > >
> > >  Check that the model has the named has_many association through it's
> > > reflections.
> > >
> > >  On one hand the second one looks like it will be a bit more robust,
> since
> > > if there is a has_many relationship, then all the associated methods may
> be
> > > used througout the app.  This would put testing in the one place.
> > >
> > >  On the other hand, this would be really testing the implementation of
> the
> > > model rather than it's behaviour.   The behaviour is to call
> > > @article.comments and have an array of comments returned.
> > >
> > >  Any thoughts?
> >
> > I think the jury is still out on this one. Both approaches present
> > problems, and no better approaches have been proposed. I'd say try it
> > both ways and report back on experiences.
> >
> > David
> >
> > >  Cheers
> > >  Daniel
> > >
>
> I went with the second way, testing the association through reflections.
> The reason I did this is that by testing that there is a has_* or belongs_to
> you are really testing the availablity of all the assoicated methods.  Which
> you are then free to use throughout your app.
>
> If you go the other way, you are not in fact testing if a model "has_many"
> since this implies that all has_many methods will be included, not just
> returning and setting an Array.
>
> If your interested I've put up the module that I am using to provide these
> and a couple of other methods on pastie.  This is my first go so please
> don't expect anything spectacular.
>
> http://pastie.caboo.se/76462
>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>

Wow I should really have checked that more thoroughly.  I found many
mistakes in that.

Here is one I've fixed up.

http://pastie.caboo.se/76470

Daniel

From has.sox at gmail.com  Fri Jul  6 08:42:29 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 22:42:29 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] mocking methods in the controller.
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707060035nb036c50qe4440feb836f5076@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707050628i55391c60v75ea4b1b12e1311c@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707060011w1c5d35e9l293e075dab359bd7@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707060035nb036c50qe4440feb836f5076@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707060542x3c8e721ag619bfc8b375e9181@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/6/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/5/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm very new to rspec so please be patient with me.
> > >
> > > I've tried to take some of my tests out of the controller specs to
> > check for
> > > things that are rendered.
> > >
> > > This has not worked so well, since my views have the controller method
> > >
> > > current_user
> > >
> > > in quite a few places.
> > >
> > > Is there any way that I can define this so that my views will be
> > executed?
> > > Will this same thing occur for all helper methods that are definied in
> > the
> > > controller?
> >
> > If I understand you correctly, you are trying to take tests for views
> > that were previously rails functional tests and turn them into rspec
> > view examples. If that is the case, you should be able to do this:
> >
> > template.stub!(:current_user).and_return(mock_model(User))
> >
> > If not, please provide an explicit example so we can better understand
> > what you're talking about.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > David
>
>
>
> Thanx David,
>
> That looks like what I was looking for.
>
> I will try it when I get home.
>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>

Ok I've started to have a crack at this but it's getting way out of hand.
Everytime I stub a method there's another one to do.

I've also found that when there's a partial _detail and I've passed the
:collection => @things to it it blows up complaining that the local variable
is nil in
dom_id( detail )

Am I doing someting wrong?  The start of my specs is

  before do
    @u = mock_model( User )
    @book = mock_model( Book )

    public_book = mock_model( Book )
    private_book = mock_model( Book )
    public_book.stub!(:title=).and_return( "Public Title" )
    private_book.stub!(:title=).and_return( "Private Title" )
    public_book.stub!( :title ).and_return( "Public Title" )
    private_book.stub!( :title ).and_return( "Private Title" )

    @u.stub!( :public_books ).and_return( [public_book] )
    @u.stub!( :private_books ).and_return( [private_book] )
    @clip = mock_model( Clip )
    @clip.stub!( :id ).and_return( 1 )
    @clips = [ @clip ]

    template.stub!( :current_user ).and_return( @u )
  end

and I've only started.  Is it normal to have to stub this much for a view?

Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070706/c135d879/attachment.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul  6 08:59:28 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 07:59:28 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] mocking methods in the controller.
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707060542x3c8e721ag619bfc8b375e9181@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707050628i55391c60v75ea4b1b12e1311c@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707060011w1c5d35e9l293e075dab359bd7@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707060035nb036c50qe4440feb836f5076@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707060542x3c8e721ag619bfc8b375e9181@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707060559l58fd8826k91afd8b2d696e0d3@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/6/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/6/07, David Chelimsky < dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/5/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'm very new to rspec so please be patient with me.
> > > >
> > > > I've tried to take some of my tests out of the controller specs to
> check for
> > > > things that are rendered.
> > > >
> > > > This has not worked so well, since my views have the controller method
> > > >
> > > > current_user
> > > >
> > > > in quite a few places.
> > > >
> > > > Is there any way that I can define this so that my views will be
> executed?
> > > > Will this same thing occur for all helper methods that are definied in
> the
> > > > controller?
> > >
> > > If I understand you correctly, you are trying to take tests for views
> > > that were previously rails functional tests and turn them into rspec
> > > view examples. If that is the case, you should be able to do this:
> > >
> > >
> template.stub!(:current_user).and_return(mock_model(User))
> > >
> > > If not, please provide an explicit example so we can better understand
> > > what you're talking about.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > David
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanx David,
> >
> > That looks like what I was looking for.
> >
> > I will try it when I get home.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Daniel
>
> Ok I've started to have a crack at this but it's getting way out of hand.
> Everytime I stub a method there's another one to do.
>
> I've also found that when there's a partial _detail and I've passed the
> :collection => @things to it it blows up complaining that the local variable
> is nil in
> dom_id( detail )

If you're using the trunk, you can do this:

template.expects_render(:partial => 'detail', :collection => @things)

>
> Am I doing someting wrong?  The start of my specs is
>
>   before do
>     @u = mock_model( User )
>     @book = mock_model( Book )
>
>     public_book = mock_model( Book )
>     private_book = mock_model( Book )
>     public_book.stub!(:title=).and_return( "Public Title" )
>     private_book.stub!(:title=).and_return( "Private Title"
> )
>     public_book.stub!( :title ).and_return( "Public Title" )
>     private_book.stub!( :title ).and_return( "Private Title" )

Why are you stubbing the same calls twice each?

>
>     @u.stub!( :public_books ).and_return( [public_book] )
>     @u.stub!( :private_books ).and_return( [private_book] )
>     @clip = mock_model( Clip )
>     @clip.stub!( :id ).and_return( 1 )
>     @clips = [ @clip ]
>
>     template.stub!( :current_user ).and_return( @u )
>   end
>
> and I've only started.  Is it normal to have to stub this much for a view?

Depends on how much stuff is in your view :)

You've got a couple of options. You could create instances of the
model instead. As long as you're not saving and retrieving them
there's very little db interaction - just enough for AR to discover
the attributes.

If you prefer to keep it all mocked/stubbed, you could clean up a bit like this:

before do
  @u = mock_model( User )
  @book = mock_model( Book )

  public_book = mock_model(Book, :title => 'Public Title')
  private_book = mock_model( Book, :title => 'Private Title')

  @u.stub!( :public_books ).and_return( [public_book] )
  @u.stub!( :private_books ).and_return( [private_book] )

  @clips = [ @clip = mock_model( Clip, :id => 1 ) ]

  template.stub!( :current_user ).and_return( @u )
end

That stubs the same amount of stuff, but its a little cleaner. You
could also write a shared behaviour that stubs current user:

describe "authenticated page view", :shared => true do
  before(:each) do
    template.stub!( :current_user ).and_return( @u )
  end
end

describe "/some/page"
  it_should_behave_like "authenticated page view"

  before(:each) do
    @u = mock_model( User )
    @book = mock_model( Book )

    public_book = mock_model(Book, :title => 'Public Title')
    private_book = mock_model( Book, :title => 'Private Title')

    @u.stub!( :public_books ).and_return( [public_book] )
    @u.stub!( :private_books ).and_return( [private_book] )

    @clips = [ @clip = mock_model( Clip, :id => 1 ) ]

  end
end

There's probably a bit more to clean up but I'd have to see the view
code. Would you mind letting us see it?

>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From has.sox at gmail.com  Fri Jul  6 10:27:16 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 00:27:16 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] mocking methods in the controller.
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707060559l58fd8826k91afd8b2d696e0d3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707050628i55391c60v75ea4b1b12e1311c@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707060011w1c5d35e9l293e075dab359bd7@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707060035nb036c50qe4440feb836f5076@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707060542x3c8e721ag619bfc8b375e9181@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707060559l58fd8826k91afd8b2d696e0d3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707060727m1ac54674m1ed9aea4869d96c5@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/6/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/6/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/6/07, David Chelimsky < dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 7/5/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm very new to rspec so please be patient with me.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've tried to take some of my tests out of the controller specs to
> > check for
> > > > > things that are rendered.
> > > > >
> > > > > This has not worked so well, since my views have the controller
> method
> > > > >
> > > > > current_user
> > > > >
> > > > > in quite a few places.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there any way that I can define this so that my views will be
> > executed?
> > > > > Will this same thing occur for all helper methods that are
> definied in
> > the
> > > > > controller?
> > > >
> > > > If I understand you correctly, you are trying to take tests for
> views
> > > > that were previously rails functional tests and turn them into rspec
> > > > view examples. If that is the case, you should be able to do this:
> > > >
> > > >
> > template.stub!(:current_user).and_return(mock_model(User))
> > > >
> > > > If not, please provide an explicit example so we can better
> understand
> > > > what you're talking about.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > David
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanx David,
> > >
> > > That looks like what I was looking for.
> > >
> > > I will try it when I get home.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Daniel
> >
> > Ok I've started to have a crack at this but it's getting way out of
> hand.
> > Everytime I stub a method there's another one to do.
> >
> > I've also found that when there's a partial _detail and I've passed the
> > :collection => @things to it it blows up complaining that the local
> variable
> > is nil in
> > dom_id( detail )
>
> If you're using the trunk, you can do this:
>
> template.expects_render(:partial => 'detail', :collection => @things)
>
> >
> > Am I doing someting wrong?  The start of my specs is
> >
> >   before do
> >     @u = mock_model( User )
> >     @book = mock_model( Book )
> >
> >     public_book = mock_model( Book )
> >     private_book = mock_model( Book )
> >     public_book.stub!(:title=).and_return( "Public Title" )
> >     private_book.stub!(:title=).and_return( "Private Title"
> > )
> >     public_book.stub!( :title ).and_return( "Public Title" )
> >     private_book.stub!( :title ).and_return( "Private Title" )
>
> Why are you stubbing the same calls twice each?
>
> >
> >     @u.stub!( :public_books ).and_return( [public_book] )
> >     @u.stub!( :private_books ).and_return( [private_book] )
> >     @clip = mock_model( Clip )
> >     @clip.stub!( :id ).and_return( 1 )
> >     @clips = [ @clip ]
> >
> >     template.stub!( :current_user ).and_return( @u )
> >   end
> >
> > and I've only started.  Is it normal to have to stub this much for a
> view?
>
> Depends on how much stuff is in your view :)
>
> You've got a couple of options. You could create instances of the
> model instead. As long as you're not saving and retrieving them
> there's very little db interaction - just enough for AR to discover
> the attributes.
>
> If you prefer to keep it all mocked/stubbed, you could clean up a bit like
> this:
>
> before do
>   @u = mock_model( User )
>   @book = mock_model( Book )
>
>   public_book = mock_model(Book, :title => 'Public Title')
>   private_book = mock_model( Book, :title => 'Private Title')
>
>   @u.stub!( :public_books ).and_return( [public_book] )
>   @u.stub!( :private_books ).and_return( [private_book] )
>
>   @clips = [ @clip = mock_model( Clip, :id => 1 ) ]
>
>   template.stub!( :current_user ).and_return( @u )
> end
>
> That stubs the same amount of stuff, but its a little cleaner. You
> could also write a shared behaviour that stubs current user:
>
> describe "authenticated page view", :shared => true do
>   before(:each) do
>     template.stub!( :current_user ).and_return( @u )
>   end
> end
>
> describe "/some/page"
>   it_should_behave_like "authenticated page view"
>
>   before(:each) do
>     @u = mock_model( User )
>     @book = mock_model( Book )
>
>     public_book = mock_model(Book, :title => 'Public Title')
>     private_book = mock_model( Book, :title => 'Private Title')
>
>     @u.stub!( :public_books ).and_return( [public_book] )
>     @u.stub!( :private_books ).and_return( [private_book] )
>
>     @clips = [ @clip = mock_model( Clip, :id => 1 ) ]
>
>   end
> end
>
> There's probably a bit more to clean up but I'd have to see the view
> code. Would you mind letting us see it?
>
> >
> > Cheers
> > Daniel



index.html.erb

<% content_for :action_bar do %>
  <% @public_books = current_user.public_books %>
    <% @private_books = current_user.private_books %>
  <%= render :file => 'books/_book_list.html.erb' -%>
<% end %>

<% if @book %>
  <div class='book_clip_list' id='<%= dom_id( @book )-%>'>
      <h2 class='book_header'><%= @book.title -%></h2>
        <ul id="book_clip_menu">
            <li>
                <button class='collapse_all'>Collapse All</button>
                <button class='expand_all'>Expand All</button>
            </li>
        </ul>
        <%= render :partial => 'detail', :collection => @clips %>
    </div>
<% else %>
  <%= render :partial => 'detail', :collection => @clips -%>

<% end %>


detail.html.erb
<div id='<%= dom_id( detail ) -%>' class='clip_container'>
    <div class='clip_header'>
        <button class='minimize'>-</button>
        <h3 id='<%= "#{dom_id( detail )}_header" -%>'><%= detail.title-%></h3>
        <div>
            <a href='<%= detail.url -%>' target='_blank'><%= URI.parse(
detail.url).host -%></a><br/>
            <%= detail.created_at.to_s( :long ) -%>
        </div>
    </div>
    <div class='content_container' id='<%= "#{dom_id( detail
)}_content_container" -%>'>
    <div class='clip_menu'>
        <ul class='action_menu'>
            <%= render :partial => 'action_menu_links', :locals => { :clip
=> detail, :book => @book } -%>
        </ul>
        <ul class='view_menu'>
        <%= render :partial => 'alternative_content_links', :locals => {
:clip => detail } -%>
        </ul>
    </div>
    <blockquote id='<%= "#{dom_id( detail )}_blockquote"-%>'>
    <% render_as = @view_type || 'html' %>
    <% render_as = 'html' unless Clip.available_types.include?( render_as )
%>
        <% case render_as %>
        <% when 'quote' %>
            <%= render :partial => 'text',     :locals => { :clip => detail
} %>
        <% when 'images' %>
          <%= render :partial => 'images',     :locals => { :clip => detail
} %>
        <% when 'html' %>
            <%= render :partial => 'html',        :locals => { :clip =>
detail } %>
        <% end %>

    </blockquote>
    </div>
</div>


The _text, _images, _html partials are very simple so I won't show them
here.  This will be enough I think to evaluate it.

Thankyou for helping with this.

Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070707/7a172439/attachment.html 

From jed.hurt at gmail.com  Fri Jul  6 11:45:39 2007
From: jed.hurt at gmail.com (Jed Hurt)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:45:39 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Outside-In with RSpec on Rails
Message-ID: <dbc32d450707060845q4e93d4e4ie0d25b4f4385c414@mail.gmail.com>

I just read 'Mocks Aren't Stubs' and was intrigued by the notion of
'outside-in' TDD.

As a Rails developer, I'm curious if others are employing this method
when developing Rails applications using RSpec. Is it common practice
(or even practical) to drive the development of a Rails app by
starting with view specs, then controller specs, then models?

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul  6 11:55:09 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:55:09 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Outside-In with RSpec on Rails
In-Reply-To: <dbc32d450707060845q4e93d4e4ie0d25b4f4385c414@mail.gmail.com>
References: <dbc32d450707060845q4e93d4e4ie0d25b4f4385c414@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707060855k501bf8a0l8a1eed29f76a95ee@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/07, Jed Hurt <jed.hurt at gmail.com> wrote:
> I just read 'Mocks Aren't Stubs' and was intrigued by the notion of
> 'outside-in' TDD.
>
> As a Rails developer, I'm curious if others are employing this method
> when developing Rails applications using RSpec. Is it common practice
> (or even practical) to drive the development of a Rails app by
> starting with view specs, then controller specs, then models?

Common? Not from what I've seen. I think that most ppl seem to start
w/ the controller.

That said, I've been starting with the views with some success. I find
that when I've started with the controller, I've ended up doing a lot
more refactoring once that slice was done (i.e. a given
view/controller action/model trio) than I do when I start w/ the view.
In other words, the designs that emerge when I start w/ views are
closer to the designs that I want.

This is just me. I'm not advocating that this will work for everybody.

David


> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From jcfischer.lists at gmail.com  Fri Jul  6 12:07:42 2007
From: jcfischer.lists at gmail.com (Jens-Christian Fischer)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:07:42 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] stubbing helper methods for View specs
Message-ID: <64BFD93F-71D6-47E0-A4C0-22DEBDB6C6DD@gmail.com>

Hi there

I have several view specs, that include the following snippet in  
their "before" block to stub the methods by acts_as_authenticated

   before :each do
     @u = mock_model(User)
     @u.should_receive(:name).and_return("Hans Muster")
     template.should_receive(:logged_in?).and_return(true)
     template.should_receive(:current_user).and_return(@u)
   end

this works for views / helpers like this:

   it "should show bla" do
     render "/layouts/thetool"
     response.should have_tag("p", "bla")
   end

and the view (haml to make things more interesting)

   - if logged_in?
     %p bla


Now I also use Ezra acl_system2 plugin which defines a "restrict_to"  
method that queries some roles. When I stub the methods above and run  
specs, I get the following error:

ActionView::TemplateError in '/users/show should display the  
information of the user'
undefined local variable or method `current_user' for  
#<Spec::Rails::DSL::ViewExampleController:0x35d5cc0>
On line #59 of app/views/users/show.haml

     56:       - @user.roles.each do |role|
     57:         = role.title
     58:
     59: - restrict_to "admin | projektleiter" do
     60:   = link_to "Bearbeiten", edit_user_url(@user)
     app/views//users/show.haml:59
     vendor/plugins/acl_system2/lib/caboose/access_control.rb:75:in  
`restrict_to'
     (eval):2:in `restrict_to'
     (eval):164:in `_render_haml_1'
     vendor/plugins/haml/lib/haml/engine.rb:435:in `compile'
     vendor/plugins/haml/lib/haml/engine.rb:186:in `to_html'
     vendor/plugins/haml/lib/haml/template.rb:69:in `render'
     vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_view/base.rb:502:in  
`delegate_render'
     vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_view/base.rb:324:in  
`render_template_old'
     vendor/plugins/haml/lib/haml/template.rb:96:in `render_template'
     vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_view/base.rb:286:in  
`globalize_old_render_file'
     vendor/plugins/trunk/lib/globalize/rails/action_view.rb:20:in  
`render_file'
     vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/base.rb:879:in  
`render_file'
     vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/base.rb:814:in  
`render_with_no_layout'
     vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/layout.rb:258:in  
`render_without_benchmark'
     vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb: 
51:in `render'
     /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:300:in `measure'
     vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb: 
51:in `render'
     vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/ 
view.rb:51:in `render'
     spec/views/users/show_haml_spec.rb:23
     ...



Interestingly, when I misspell the name of the stub in the working  
example, I get the following error:

1)
ActionView::TemplateError in '/shared/layout_test not logged in  
should have the correct head information'
undefined method `logged_in?' for #<ActionView::Base:0x22ec6f8>
On line #13 of app/views/layouts/thetool.haml

app/views//layouts/thetool.haml:13
     app/helpers/application_helper.rb:5:in `login_logout'
     (eval):28:in `_render_haml_1'
     vendor/plugins/haml/lib/haml/engine.rb:435:in `compile'
     vendor/plugins/haml/lib/haml/engine.rb:186:in `to_html'
     vendor/plugins/haml/lib/haml/template.rb:69:in `render'
     vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_view/base.rb:502:in  
`delegate_render'
     vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_view/base.rb:324:in  
`render_template_old'
     vendor/plugins/haml/lib/haml/template.rb:96:in `render_template'
     vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_view/base.rb:286:in  
`globalize_old_render_file'
     vendor/plugins/trunk/lib/globalize/rails/action_view.rb:20:in  
`render_file'
     vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/base.rb:879:in  
`render_file'
     vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/base.rb:814:in  
`render_with_no_layout'
     vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/layout.rb:258:in  
`render_without_benchmark'
     vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb: 
51:in `render'
     /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:300:in `measure'
     vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb: 
51:in `render'
     vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/ 
view.rb:51:in `render'
     spec/views/layouts/thetool_haml_spec.rb:16


Note the different class (#<ActionView::Base:0x22ec6f8> vs  
#<Spec::Rails::DSL::ViewExampleController:0x35d5cc0>) in the two specs.

I don't have enough rspec_fu to deduce where the problem lies..


Any helpers?

thanks
Jens-Christian




From jed.hurt at gmail.com  Fri Jul  6 12:13:49 2007
From: jed.hurt at gmail.com (Jed Hurt)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:13:49 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Outside-In with RSpec on Rails
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707060855k501bf8a0l8a1eed29f76a95ee@mail.gmail.com>
References: <dbc32d450707060845q4e93d4e4ie0d25b4f4385c414@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707060855k501bf8a0l8a1eed29f76a95ee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dbc32d450707060913n82829cq9f07302f4001fd6c@mail.gmail.com>

Cool. I'll have to give it a try on my next project.

On 7/6/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/6/07, Jed Hurt <jed.hurt at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I just read 'Mocks Aren't Stubs' and was intrigued by the notion of
> > 'outside-in' TDD.
> >
> > As a Rails developer, I'm curious if others are employing this method
> > when developing Rails applications using RSpec. Is it common practice
> > (or even practical) to drive the development of a Rails app by
> > starting with view specs, then controller specs, then models?
>
> Common? Not from what I've seen. I think that most ppl seem to start
> w/ the controller.
>
> That said, I've been starting with the views with some success. I find
> that when I've started with the controller, I've ended up doing a lot
> more refactoring once that slice was done (i.e. a given
> view/controller action/model trio) than I do when I start w/ the view.
> In other words, the designs that emerge when I start w/ views are
> closer to the designs that I want.
>
> This is just me. I'm not advocating that this will work for everybody.
>
> David
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul  6 12:17:10 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:17:10 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] mocking methods in the controller.
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707060727m1ac54674m1ed9aea4869d96c5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707050628i55391c60v75ea4b1b12e1311c@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707060011w1c5d35e9l293e075dab359bd7@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707060035nb036c50qe4440feb836f5076@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707060542x3c8e721ag619bfc8b375e9181@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707060559l58fd8826k91afd8b2d696e0d3@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707060727m1ac54674m1ed9aea4869d96c5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707060917k4cfc3096ya9314bfcb551839@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/6/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/6/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/6/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 7/6/07, David Chelimsky < dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 7/5/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm very new to rspec so please be patient with me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've tried to take some of my tests out of the controller specs to
> > > check for
> > > > > > things that are rendered.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This has not worked so well, since my views have the controller
> method
> > > > > >
> > > > > > current_user
> > > > > >
> > > > > > in quite a few places.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there any way that I can define this so that my views will be
> > > executed?
> > > > > > Will this same thing occur for all helper methods that are
> definied in
> > > the
> > > > > > controller?
> > > > >
> > > > > If I understand you correctly, you are trying to take tests for
> views
> > > > > that were previously rails functional tests and turn them into rspec
> > > > > view examples. If that is the case, you should be able to do this:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> template.stub!(:current_user).and_return(mock_model(User))
> > > > >
> > > > > If not, please provide an explicit example so we can better
> understand
> > > > > what you're talking about.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > David
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanx David,
> > > >
> > > > That looks like what I was looking for.
> > > >
> > > > I will try it when I get home.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Daniel
> > >
> > > Ok I've started to have a crack at this but it's getting way out of
> hand.
> > > Everytime I stub a method there's another one to do.
> > >
> > > I've also found that when there's a partial _detail and I've passed the
> > > :collection => @things to it it blows up complaining that the local
> variable
> > > is nil in
> > > dom_id( detail )
> >
> > If you're using the trunk, you can do this:
> >
> > template.expects_render(:partial => 'detail', :collection => @things)
> >
> > >
> > > Am I doing someting wrong?  The start of my specs is
> > >
> > >   before do
> > >     @u = mock_model( User )
> > >     @book = mock_model( Book )
> > >
> > >     public_book = mock_model( Book )
> > >     private_book = mock_model( Book )
> > >     public_book.stub!(:title=).and_return( "Public
> Title" )
> > >     private_book.stub!(:title=).and_return( "Private
> Title"
> > > )
> > >     public_book.stub!( :title ).and_return( "Public Title" )
> > >     private_book.stub!( :title ).and_return( "Private Title" )
> >
> > Why are you stubbing the same calls twice each?
> >
> > >
> > >     @u.stub!( :public_books ).and_return( [public_book] )
> > >     @u.stub!( :private_books ).and_return( [private_book] )
> > >     @clip = mock_model( Clip )
> > >     @clip.stub!( :id ).and_return( 1 )
> > >     @clips = [ @clip ]
> > >
> > >     template.stub!( :current_user ).and_return( @u )
> > >   end
> > >
> > > and I've only started.  Is it normal to have to stub this much for a
> view?
> >
> > Depends on how much stuff is in your view :)
> >
> > You've got a couple of options. You could create instances of the
> > model instead. As long as you're not saving and retrieving them
> > there's very little db interaction - just enough for AR to discover
> > the attributes.
> >
> > If you prefer to keep it all mocked/stubbed, you could clean up a bit like
> this:
> >
> > before do
> >   @u = mock_model( User )
> >   @book = mock_model( Book )
> >
> >   public_book = mock_model(Book, :title => 'Public Title')
> >   private_book = mock_model( Book, :title => 'Private Title')
> >
> >   @u.stub!( :public_books ).and_return( [public_book] )
> >   @u.stub!( :private_books ).and_return( [private_book] )
> >
> >   @clips = [ @clip = mock_model( Clip, :id => 1 ) ]
> >
> >   template.stub!( :current_user ).and_return( @u )
> > end
> >
> > That stubs the same amount of stuff, but its a little cleaner. You
> > could also write a shared behaviour that stubs current user:
> >
> > describe "authenticated page view", :shared => true do
> >   before(:each) do
> >     template.stub!( :current_user ).and_return( @u )
> >   end
> > end
> >
> > describe "/some/page"
> >   it_should_behave_like "authenticated page view"
> >
> >   before(:each) do
> >     @u = mock_model( User )
> >     @book = mock_model( Book )
> >
> >     public_book = mock_model(Book, :title => 'Public Title')
> >     private_book = mock_model( Book, :title => 'Private Title')
> >
> >     @u.stub!( :public_books ).and_return( [public_book] )
> >     @u.stub!( :private_books ).and_return( [private_book] )
> >
> >     @clips = [ @clip = mock_model( Clip, :id => 1 ) ]
> >
> >   end
> > end
> >
> > There's probably a bit more to clean up but I'd have to see the view
> > code. Would you mind letting us see it?
> >
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Daniel
>
>
> index.html.erb
>
> <% content_for :action_bar do %>
>   <% @public_books = current_user.public_books %>
>     <% @private_books = current_user.private_books %>
>   <%= render :file => 'books/_book_list.html.erb' -%>
> <% end %>
>
> <% if @book %>
>   <div class='book_clip_list' id='<%= dom_id( @book )-%>'>
>       <h2 class='book_header'><%= @book.title -%></h2>
>         <ul id="book_clip_menu">
>             <li>
>                 <button class='collapse_all'>Collapse All</button>
>                 <button class='expand_all'>Expand All</button>
>             </li>
>         </ul>
>         <%= render :partial => 'detail', :collection => @clips %>
>     </div>
> <% else %>
>   <%= render :partial => 'detail', :collection => @clips -%>
>
> <% end %>
>
>
> detail.html.erb
> <div id='<%= dom_id( detail ) -%>' class='clip_container'>
>     <div class='clip_header'>
>         <button class='minimize'>-</button>
>         <h3 id='<%= "#{dom_id( detail )}_header" -%>'><%= detail.title
> -%></h3>
>         <div>
>             <a href='<%= detail.url -%>' target='_blank'><%=
> URI.parse(detail.url).host -%></a><br/>
>             <%= detail.created_at.to_s ( :long ) -%>
>         </div>
>     </div>
>     <div class='content_container' id='<%= "#{dom_id( detail
> )}_content_container" -%>'>
>     <div class='clip_menu'>
>         <ul class='action_menu'>
>             <%= render :partial => 'action_menu_links', :locals => { :clip
> => detail, :book => @book } -%>
>         </ul>
>         <ul class='view_menu'>
>         <%= render :partial => 'alternative_content_links', :locals => {
> :clip => detail } -%>
>         </ul>
>     </div>
>     <blockquote id='<%= "#{dom_id( detail )}_blockquote"-%>'>
>     <% render_as = @view_type || 'html' %>
>     <% render_as = 'html' unless Clip.available_types.include?( render_as )
> %>
>         <% case render_as %>
>         <% when 'quote' %>
>             <%= render :partial => 'text',     :locals => { :clip => detail
> } %>
>         <% when 'images' %>
>           <%= render :partial => 'images',     :locals => { :clip => detail
> } %>
>         <% when 'html' %>
>             <%= render :partial => 'html',        :locals => { :clip =>
> detail } %>
>         <% end %>
>
>     </blockquote>
>      </div>
> </div>
>
>
> The _text, _images, _html partials are very simple so I won't show them
> here.  This will be enough I think to evaluate it.
>
> Thank you for helping with this.

OK - there's quite a bit going on here, and I don't really have time
to address every detail right now - but here's a couple of things to
think about:

Conventional wisdom suggests that you should favor decision making in
controllers and helpers rather than in the views themselves. One
reason for this is that view templates boil down to a single method,
so you have to provide all of the state they need every time. If your
view has nothing but instance variables that get assigned from the
controller, and never reach into them for their data, then you have
nothing to set up in a test.

Consider this:

<% content_for :action_bar do %>
  <% @public_books = current_user.public_books %>
  <% @private_books = current_user.private_books %>
  <%= render :file => 'books/_book_list.html.erb' -%>
<% end %>

That design choice requires that you set up a current_user which can
provide public_books and private_books. If, instead, you handled that
in the controller, you'd still have to provide a current_user for the
controller examples, but it becomes much easier to start pushing
things around to different methods that can each be tested in
isolation, so the setup for each can get smaller. If you did this, the
view example might look like this:

template.expects_render(:file => 'books/_book_list.html.erb')

instead of this:

template.stub!(:current_user).and_return(
  mock_model(User,
    :public_books => [],
    :private_books => [],
  )
)
template.expects_render(:file => 'books/_book_list.html.erb')

Given what you've got, I think you could do this (with trunk) in before(:each):

============================
controller.stub!(:dom_id).and_return("anything")
template.stub!(:current_user).and_return(
  mock_model(User,
    :public_books => [],
    :private_books => [],
  )
)
template.stubs_render(:file => 'books/_book_list.html.erb')
template.stubs_render(:partial => 'detail', :collection => @clips)

assigns[:clips] => []
assigns[:book] => mock_model(Book)
============================

Then you could use Message Expectations (mocks) in each example for
the specific thing you want to describe.

Hope this helps.

David


>
> Daniel
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul  6 14:27:47 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 13:27:47 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] stubbing helper methods for View specs
In-Reply-To: <64BFD93F-71D6-47E0-A4C0-22DEBDB6C6DD@gmail.com>
References: <64BFD93F-71D6-47E0-A4C0-22DEBDB6C6DD@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707061127i598c64b0k32e2229c82241782@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/07, Jens-Christian Fischer <jcfischer.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi there
>
> I have several view specs, that include the following snippet in
> their "before" block to stub the methods by acts_as_authenticated
>
>    before :each do
>      @u = mock_model(User)
>      @u.should_receive(:name).and_return("Hans Muster")
>      template.should_receive(:logged_in?).and_return(true)
>      template.should_receive(:current_user).and_return(@u)
>    end
>
> this works for views / helpers like this:
>
>    it "should show bla" do
>      render "/layouts/thetool"
>      response.should have_tag("p", "bla")
>    end
>
> and the view (haml to make things more interesting)
>
>    - if logged_in?
>      %p bla
>
>
> Now I also use Ezra acl_system2 plugin which defines a "restrict_to"
> method that queries some roles. When I stub the methods above and run
> specs, I get the following error:
>
> ActionView::TemplateError in '/users/show should display the
> information of the user'
> undefined local variable or method `current_user' for
> #<Spec::Rails::DSL::ViewExampleController:0x35d5cc0>
> On line #59 of app/views/users/show.haml
>
>      56:       - @user.roles.each do |role|
>      57:         = role.title
>      58:
>      59: - restrict_to "admin | projektleiter" do
>      60:   = link_to "Bearbeiten", edit_user_url(@user)
>      app/views//users/show.haml:59
>      vendor/plugins/acl_system2/lib/caboose/access_control.rb:75:in
> `restrict_to'
>      (eval):2:in `restrict_to'
>      (eval):164:in `_render_haml_1'
>      vendor/plugins/haml/lib/haml/engine.rb:435:in `compile'
>      vendor/plugins/haml/lib/haml/engine.rb:186:in `to_html'
>      vendor/plugins/haml/lib/haml/template.rb:69:in `render'
>      vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_view/base.rb:502:in
> `delegate_render'
>      vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_view/base.rb:324:in
> `render_template_old'
>      vendor/plugins/haml/lib/haml/template.rb:96:in `render_template'
>      vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_view/base.rb:286:in
> `globalize_old_render_file'
>      vendor/plugins/trunk/lib/globalize/rails/action_view.rb:20:in
> `render_file'
>      vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/base.rb:879:in
> `render_file'
>      vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/base.rb:814:in
> `render_with_no_layout'
>      vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/layout.rb:258:in
> `render_without_benchmark'
>      vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb:
> 51:in `render'
>      /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:300:in `measure'
>      vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb:
> 51:in `render'
>      vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/
> view.rb:51:in `render'
>      spec/views/users/show_haml_spec.rb:23
>      ...
>
>
>
> Interestingly, when I misspell the name of the stub in the working
> example, I get the following error:
>
> 1)
> ActionView::TemplateError in '/shared/layout_test not logged in
> should have the correct head information'
> undefined method `logged_in?' for #<ActionView::Base:0x22ec6f8>
> On line #13 of app/views/layouts/thetool.haml
>
> app/views//layouts/thetool.haml:13
>      app/helpers/application_helper.rb:5:in `login_logout'
>      (eval):28:in `_render_haml_1'
>      vendor/plugins/haml/lib/haml/engine.rb:435:in `compile'
>      vendor/plugins/haml/lib/haml/engine.rb:186:in `to_html'
>      vendor/plugins/haml/lib/haml/template.rb:69:in `render'
>      vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_view/base.rb:502:in
> `delegate_render'
>      vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_view/base.rb:324:in
> `render_template_old'
>      vendor/plugins/haml/lib/haml/template.rb:96:in `render_template'
>      vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_view/base.rb:286:in
> `globalize_old_render_file'
>      vendor/plugins/trunk/lib/globalize/rails/action_view.rb:20:in
> `render_file'
>      vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/base.rb:879:in
> `render_file'
>      vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/base.rb:814:in
> `render_with_no_layout'
>      vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/layout.rb:258:in
> `render_without_benchmark'
>      vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb:
> 51:in `render'
>      /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:300:in `measure'
>      vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb:
> 51:in `render'
>      vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/
> view.rb:51:in `render'
>      spec/views/layouts/thetool_haml_spec.rb:16
>
>
> Note the different class (#<ActionView::Base:0x22ec6f8> vs
> #<Spec::Rails::DSL::ViewExampleController:0x35d5cc0>) in the two specs.
>
> I don't have enough rspec_fu to deduce where the problem lies..
>
>
> Any helpers?

In a nutshell - Rails compiles templates the first time they are
encountered in a given runtime. Combine this with the fact that mock
expectations are cleared out after every example, but the mock
framework doesn't have access to the compiled template, and you can
imagine that this is )(*&)(*ing nightmare-ish can of worms.

I thought I had a solution for this in trunk, but I've just discovered
some problems with it and am working to resolve them.

Sorry - can't be more helpful right now.

>
> thanks
> Jens-Christian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From jcfischer.lists at gmail.com  Fri Jul  6 15:13:57 2007
From: jcfischer.lists at gmail.com (Jens-Christian Fischer)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 21:13:57 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] stubbing helper methods for View specs
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707061127i598c64b0k32e2229c82241782@mail.gmail.com>
References: <64BFD93F-71D6-47E0-A4C0-22DEBDB6C6DD@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707061127i598c64b0k32e2229c82241782@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <15B88DEF-F378-4013-B4E2-C3AB670F1339@gmail.com>

>>
>> I don't have enough rspec_fu to deduce where the problem lies..
>>
>>
>> Any helpers?
>
> In a nutshell - Rails compiles templates the first time they are
> encountered in a given runtime. Combine this with the fact that mock
> expectations are cleared out after every example, but the mock
> framework doesn't have access to the compiled template, and you can
> imagine that this is )(*&)(*ing nightmare-ish can of worms.
>
> I thought I had a solution for this in trunk, but I've just discovered
> some problems with it and am working to resolve them.
>
> Sorry - can't be more helpful right now.

so my best bet would be to use regular functional tests for the time  
being? (Having no specs/tests kind of seems to be the wrong solution  
to this problem...

:)

cheers jc

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul  6 15:17:43 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 14:17:43 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] stubbing helper methods for View specs
In-Reply-To: <15B88DEF-F378-4013-B4E2-C3AB670F1339@gmail.com>
References: <64BFD93F-71D6-47E0-A4C0-22DEBDB6C6DD@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707061127i598c64b0k32e2229c82241782@mail.gmail.com>
	<15B88DEF-F378-4013-B4E2-C3AB670F1339@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707061217i5ed65afg22764f9a6f35221@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/6/07, Jens-Christian Fischer <jcfischer.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't have enough rspec_fu to deduce where the problem lies..
> >>
> >>
> >> Any helpers?
> >
> > In a nutshell - Rails compiles templates the first time they are
> > encountered in a given runtime. Combine this with the fact that mock
> > expectations are cleared out after every example, but the mock
> > framework doesn't have access to the compiled template, and you can
> > imagine that this is )(*&)(*ing nightmare-ish can of worms.
> >
> > I thought I had a solution for this in trunk, but I've just discovered
> > some problems with it and am working to resolve them.
> >
> > Sorry - can't be more helpful right now.
>
> so my best bet would be to use regular functional tests for the time
> being? (Having no specs/tests kind of seems to be the wrong solution
> to this problem...

Agreed that you shouldn't be without examples for this stuff, but you
have other options within rspec:

1 - use rspec controller examples in integration mode and use real
objects (almost exactly like rails functionals, except its rspec).

2 - use rspec view examples without mocking things directly on the
template. You can still mock helper methods (on controller or
helpers).

>
> :)
>
> cheers jc
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From has.sox at gmail.com  Mon Jul  9 09:55:09 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 23:55:09 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Is it bad to use a shared example in rspec_helper.rb?
Message-ID: <2fff50390707090655u457cf3fepc930114d24da6409@mail.gmail.com>

I want to extract the method for logging in so that I don't have to include
it in each before call.

Is it bad to use a describe block within the rspec_helper in a rails project
for controller tests?

I have in my spec_helper.rb

describe "an authenticated request", :shared => true do
  before( :each ) do
    @u = mock_model( User )
    mock_login( @u )
  end

  def mock_login( user )
    session[:user] = user
    controller.send( :instance_variable_set, :@current_user, user )
    controller.stub!( :current_user ).and_return( user )
  end

end


which I then share in my relevant controller tests with

  it_should_behave_like "an authenticated request"

Is this bad?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070709/d74c003f/attachment-0001.html 

From has.sox at gmail.com  Mon Jul  9 10:31:33 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:31:33 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking User.find( :all, :limit => 10 )
Message-ID: <2fff50390707090731ob737113qa28680f3653cbcfe@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm trying to setup a mock for my controller test but I can't get it to
recognise the mock.

I use

  it "should find all users" do
    User.should_receive(:find).with( :all, :limit => 10
).and_return([@user])
    do_get
  end

and in the controller
@users = User.find(:all, :limit => 10 )

But this does not work.  It gives me
User expected :find with (:all) once, but received it 0 times

If I remove the :limit from the controller
@users = User.find(:all)

I get
User expected :find with (:all, {:limit=>10}) once, but received it 0 times

How do I spec mocks with options passed to them?

Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070710/4d8df89c/attachment.html 

From has.sox at gmail.com  Mon Jul  9 11:00:31 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:00:31 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking User.find( :all, :limit => 10 )
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707090731ob737113qa28680f3653cbcfe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707090731ob737113qa28680f3653cbcfe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707090800l1b75aa34s6914514a2ffc81fb@mail.gmail.com>

My Bad... Please ignore

On 7/10/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to setup a mock for my controller test but I can't get it to
> recognise the mock.
>
> I use
>
>   it "should find all users" do
>     User.should_receive(:find).with( :all, :limit => 10
> ).and_return([@user])
>     do_get
>   end
>
> and in the controller
> @users = User.find(:all, :limit => 10 )
>
> But this does not work.  It gives me
> User expected :find with (:all) once, but received it 0 times
>
> If I remove the :limit from the controller
> @users = User.find(:all)
>
> I get
> User expected :find with (:all, {:limit=>10}) once, but received it 0
> times
>
> How do I spec mocks with options passed to them?
>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070710/cb13ee46/attachment.html 

From johan at johansorensen.com  Mon Jul  9 11:33:28 2007
From: johan at johansorensen.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johan_S=F8rensen?=)
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 17:33:28 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking User.find( :all, :limit => 10 )
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707090800l1b75aa34s6914514a2ffc81fb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707090731ob737113qa28680f3653cbcfe@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707090800l1b75aa34s6914514a2ffc81fb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43731001-FC81-4843-A2AF-95145D960610@johansorensen.com>


On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:00 PM, Daniel N wrote:

> My Bad... Please ignore
>
> On 7/10/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
>   it "should find all users" do
>     User.should_receive(:find).with( :all, :limit => 10 ).and_return 
> ([@user])
>     do_get
>   end

Sorry for piggybacking on your post, but since you've apparantly  
figured out your isssue I have a slightly similar question; sometimes  
I have (in ActiveRecord) a verbose #find I want to mock out using  
should_receive, maybe looking something along this:
Foo.find(:all, :select => "foos.*, bars.*, :joins => "join bazzers on  
foos.baz_id = ..", :conditions => "quux = 1", etc etc)
... But all I really may care about with a specific mock expectation  
is that it gets the right :conditions key in the passed-in hash.

Is there a way in RSpec to check for a specific hash key (or  
evaluating other things along those lines) in the parameter  
expectation using the should_receive(:find).with(...) construct?

JS

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070709/1bfa23f9/attachment.html 

From joshknowles at gmail.com  Mon Jul  9 11:38:01 2007
From: joshknowles at gmail.com (Josh Knowles)
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 08:38:01 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking User.find( :all, :limit => 10 )
In-Reply-To: <43731001-FC81-4843-A2AF-95145D960610@johansorensen.com>
References: <2fff50390707090731ob737113qa28680f3653cbcfe@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707090800l1b75aa34s6914514a2ffc81fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<43731001-FC81-4843-A2AF-95145D960610@johansorensen.com>
Message-ID: <c18843c60707090838w4bbe8220s31d1b4c020e3d378@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/9/07, Johan S?rensen <johan at johansorensen.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Is there a way in RSpec to check for a specific hash key (or evaluating
> other things along those lines) in the parameter expectation using the
> should_receive(:find).with(...) construct?
>


As opposed to getting into complicated mocking scenarios, consider
abstracting this logic into your model:
http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2007/6/19/rspec-notes-from-the-trenches-2




-- 
Josh Knowles
joshknowles at gmail.com
http://joshknowles.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070709/e823b7a8/attachment.html 

From johan at johansorensen.com  Mon Jul  9 11:42:45 2007
From: johan at johansorensen.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johan_S=F8rensen?=)
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 17:42:45 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking User.find( :all, :limit => 10 )
In-Reply-To: <c18843c60707090838w4bbe8220s31d1b4c020e3d378@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707090731ob737113qa28680f3653cbcfe@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707090800l1b75aa34s6914514a2ffc81fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<43731001-FC81-4843-A2AF-95145D960610@johansorensen.com>
	<c18843c60707090838w4bbe8220s31d1b4c020e3d378@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <15DB1604-33FE-4CFC-8598-12277477C40F@johansorensen.com>


On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:38 PM, Josh Knowles wrote:

> On 7/9/07, Johan S?rensen <johan at johansorensen.com> wrote:
>
>
> Is there a way in RSpec to check for a specific hash key (or  
> evaluating other things along those lines) in the parameter  
> expectation using the should_receive(:find).with(...) construct?
>
>
> As opposed to getting into complicated mocking scenarios, consider  
> abstracting this logic into your model: http://blog.caboo.se/ 
> articles/2007/6/19/rspec-notes-from-the-trenches-2


Well, that's where it is, and for various reasons writing to the  
database is something I'm avoiding as long as I can (speedy tests and  
complex fk constraints being a few of them). I'm still not convinced  
that it's a good idea to do that for model specs, but that's another  
topic ;)

JS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070709/661f9da8/attachment.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul  9 11:42:58 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:42:58 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking User.find( :all, :limit => 10 )
In-Reply-To: <c18843c60707090838w4bbe8220s31d1b4c020e3d378@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707090731ob737113qa28680f3653cbcfe@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707090800l1b75aa34s6914514a2ffc81fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<43731001-FC81-4843-A2AF-95145D960610@johansorensen.com>
	<c18843c60707090838w4bbe8220s31d1b4c020e3d378@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707090842q20e4b9c3u7dd4851821af2df1@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/9/07, Josh Knowles <joshknowles at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/9/07, Johan S?rensen <johan at johansorensen.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Is there a way in RSpec to check for a specific hash key (or evaluating
> other things along those lines) in the parameter expectation using the
> should_receive(:find).with(...) construct?
>
>
> As opposed to getting into complicated mocking scenarios, consider
> abstracting this logic into your model:
> http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2007/6/19/rspec-notes-from-the-trenches-2

Agreed that this is a good approach in terms of dealing w/ rails
models. As for the question of isolating specific key/value pairs in a
hash, you could do this:

obj.should_receive(:message) do |*args|
  hash = args.pop
  hash[interesting_key].should == expected_value
end

It's not pretty, but it works.

The other thing you might consider is a custom matcher. Something like:

obj.should_receive(:message).with(has_key_value(key, value))

The mock framework can use these just as the expectation framework -
though mocks rely on == instead of matches.

David

>
>
>
>
> --
> Josh Knowles
> joshknowles at gmail.com
> http://joshknowles.com
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From johan at johansorensen.com  Mon Jul  9 13:41:18 2007
From: johan at johansorensen.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johan_S=F8rensen?=)
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:41:18 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking User.find( :all, :limit => 10 )
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707090842q20e4b9c3u7dd4851821af2df1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707090731ob737113qa28680f3653cbcfe@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707090800l1b75aa34s6914514a2ffc81fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<43731001-FC81-4843-A2AF-95145D960610@johansorensen.com>
	<c18843c60707090838w4bbe8220s31d1b4c020e3d378@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707090842q20e4b9c3u7dd4851821af2df1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B6AFBBE0-A16C-4952-B3EA-AE8296AECA7D@johansorensen.com>


On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:42 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:

>>
>> As opposed to getting into complicated mocking scenarios, consider
>> abstracting this logic into your model:
>> http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2007/6/19/rspec-notes-from-the- 
>> trenches-2
>
> Agreed that this is a good approach in terms of dealing w/ rails
> models.

I generally agree with this, no doubt. But when the it comes to big  
apps and bigger test/spec suites, all that database communication  
(and fixtures creation/teardown), slows testruns downs and that  
lowers the chances of people running them regularly.
There's of course many different ways of dealing with this (another  
I'm doing is reworking the way fixtures work), but in a way I see it  
the same way as I do with, say, XML-RPC models (or REST, or other  
networking related models) that I maybe I don't really need to test  
communication with the network backend all the time, but more  
interested in that my model implementation behave like I expect them  
to when it comes to sending data to the client. Of course this starts  
to turn into a slightly slippery slope when it comes to rails since  
it relies so much its direct database mapping.

I'm still trying this approach out along with other things to cut  
down specs runtime , and I eagerly await the day it bites me in the  
arse. :)

> As for the question of isolating specific key/value pairs in a
> hash, you could do this:
>
> obj.should_receive(:message) do |*args|
>   hash = args.pop
>   hash[interesting_key].should == expected_value
> end
>
> It's not pretty, but it works.
>
> The other thing you might consider is a custom matcher. Something  
> like:
>
> obj.should_receive(:message).with(has_key_value(key, value))
>
> The mock framework can use these just as the expectation framework -
> though mocks rely on == instead of matches.

Cheers, I didn't know that you could do custom matchers for those  
kind of expectations too.

JS


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070709/2f57838e/attachment-0001.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul  9 13:44:00 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 12:44:00 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking User.find( :all, :limit => 10 )
In-Reply-To: <B6AFBBE0-A16C-4952-B3EA-AE8296AECA7D@johansorensen.com>
References: <2fff50390707090731ob737113qa28680f3653cbcfe@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707090800l1b75aa34s6914514a2ffc81fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<43731001-FC81-4843-A2AF-95145D960610@johansorensen.com>
	<c18843c60707090838w4bbe8220s31d1b4c020e3d378@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707090842q20e4b9c3u7dd4851821af2df1@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6AFBBE0-A16C-4952-B3EA-AE8296AECA7D@johansorensen.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707091044qfc85513q2cd2853e290d3b9d@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/9/07, Johan S?rensen <johan at johansorensen.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:42 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As opposed to getting into complicated mocking scenarios, consider
>
> abstracting this logic into your model:
>
> http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2007/6/19/rspec-notes-from-the-trenches-2
>
>
>
>
> Agreed that this is a good approach in terms of dealing w/ rails
>
> models.
>
> I generally agree with this, no doubt. But when the it comes to big apps and
> bigger test/spec suites, all that database communication (and fixtures
> creation/teardown), slows testruns downs and that lowers the chances of
> people running them regularly.
> There's of course many different ways of dealing with this (another I'm
> doing is reworking the way fixtures work), but in a way I see it the same
> way as I do with, say, XML-RPC models (or REST, or other networking related
> models) that I maybe I don't really need to test communication with the
> network backend all the time, but more interested in that my model
> implementation behave like I expect them to when it comes to sending data to
> the client. Of course this starts to turn into a slightly slippery slope
> when it comes to rails since it relies so much its direct database mapping.
>
> I'm still trying this approach out along with other things to cut down specs
> runtime , and I eagerly await the day it bites me in the arse. :)
>
>
> As for the question of isolating specific key/value pairs in a
>
> hash, you could do this:
>
>
>
>
> obj.should_receive(:message) do |*args|
>
>   hash = args.pop
>
>   hash[interesting_key].should == expected_value
>
> end
>
>
>
>
> It's not pretty, but it works.
>
>
>
>
> The other thing you might consider is a custom matcher. Something like:
>
>
>
>
> obj.should_receive(:message).with(has_key_value(key,
> value))
>
>
>
>
> The mock framework can use these just as the expectation framework -
>
> though mocks rely on == instead of matches.
> Cheers, I didn't know that you could do custom matchers for those kind of
> expectations too.

It's not exactly widely publicized :) But that's how rspec's own
anything, numeric, etc mock argument matchers work.

>
> JS
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From edward.og at gmail.com  Mon Jul  9 21:20:21 2007
From: edward.og at gmail.com (Edward Ocampo-Gooding)
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:20:21 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] raise_controller_errors
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707091044qfc85513q2cd2853e290d3b9d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707090731ob737113qa28680f3653cbcfe@mail.gmail.com>	<2fff50390707090800l1b75aa34s6914514a2ffc81fb@mail.gmail.com>	<43731001-FC81-4843-A2AF-95145D960610@johansorensen.com>	<c18843c60707090838w4bbe8220s31d1b4c020e3d378@mail.gmail.com>	<57c63afe0707090842q20e4b9c3u7dd4851821af2df1@mail.gmail.com>	<B6AFBBE0-A16C-4952-B3EA-AE8296AECA7D@johansorensen.com>
	<57c63afe0707091044qfc85513q2cd2853e290d3b9d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4692DED5.8090704@gmail.com>

Hi Folks,

I think I've run into a problem after upgrading to edge rspec [revision 
2160], but I'm not sure where to fix things.

Default controller specs that look like this:

############################################################
require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper'

describe PurchaseController do

   #Delete this example and add some real ones
   it "should use PurchaseController" do
     controller.should be_an_instance_of(PurchaseController)
   end

end

############################################################

are now causing errors like these:

############################################################
NameError in 'PurchaseController should use PurchaseController'
undefined local variable or method `raise_controller_errors' for [RSpec 
example]:#<Class:0x69aa99c>
./spec/models/../spec_helper.rb:12:
############################################################

For the record, my spec_helper.rb is just the default generated one:

############################################################
ENV["RAILS_ENV"] = "test"
require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + "/../config/environment")
require 'spec/rails'

Spec::Runner.configure do |config|
   config.use_transactional_fixtures = true
   config.use_instantiated_fixtures  = false
   config.fixture_path = RAILS_ROOT + '/spec/fixtures'
end
############################################################

Am I missing something in spec_helper.rb or do I have some residual 
stuff from a previous version of rspec? I'm pretty sure that I've gotten 
rid of the generated stuff, but could I be missing something?

Thanks,
Edward

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul  9 21:22:59 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 20:22:59 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] raise_controller_errors
In-Reply-To: <4692DED5.8090704@gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707090731ob737113qa28680f3653cbcfe@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707090800l1b75aa34s6914514a2ffc81fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<43731001-FC81-4843-A2AF-95145D960610@johansorensen.com>
	<c18843c60707090838w4bbe8220s31d1b4c020e3d378@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707090842q20e4b9c3u7dd4851821af2df1@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6AFBBE0-A16C-4952-B3EA-AE8296AECA7D@johansorensen.com>
	<57c63afe0707091044qfc85513q2cd2853e290d3b9d@mail.gmail.com>
	<4692DED5.8090704@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707091822n51b6b18fne8a1c9d161d34b62@mail.gmail.com>

Did you run "ruby script/generate rspec"?

http://rspec.rubyforge.org/upgrade.html

On 7/9/07, Edward Ocampo-Gooding <edward.og at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I think I've run into a problem after upgrading to edge rspec [revision
> 2160], but I'm not sure where to fix things.
>
> Default controller specs that look like this:
>
> ############################################################
> require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper'
>
> describe PurchaseController do
>
>    #Delete this example and add some real ones
>    it "should use PurchaseController" do
>      controller.should be_an_instance_of(PurchaseController)
>    end
>
> end
>
> ############################################################
>
> are now causing errors like these:
>
> ############################################################
> NameError in 'PurchaseController should use PurchaseController'
> undefined local variable or method `raise_controller_errors' for [RSpec
> example]:#<Class:0x69aa99c>
> ./spec/models/../spec_helper.rb:12:
> ############################################################
>
> For the record, my spec_helper.rb is just the default generated one:
>
> ############################################################
> ENV["RAILS_ENV"] = "test"
> require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + "/../config/environment")
> require 'spec/rails'
>
> Spec::Runner.configure do |config|
>    config.use_transactional_fixtures = true
>    config.use_instantiated_fixtures  = false
>    config.fixture_path = RAILS_ROOT + '/spec/fixtures'
> end
> ############################################################
>
> Am I missing something in spec_helper.rb or do I have some residual
> stuff from a previous version of rspec? I'm pretty sure that I've gotten
> rid of the generated stuff, but could I be missing something?
>
> Thanks,
> Edward
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From edward.og at gmail.com  Mon Jul  9 21:31:12 2007
From: edward.og at gmail.com (Edward Ocampo-Gooding)
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:31:12 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] raise_controller_errors
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707091822n51b6b18fne8a1c9d161d34b62@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707090731ob737113qa28680f3653cbcfe@mail.gmail.com>	<2fff50390707090800l1b75aa34s6914514a2ffc81fb@mail.gmail.com>	<43731001-FC81-4843-A2AF-95145D960610@johansorensen.com>	<c18843c60707090838w4bbe8220s31d1b4c020e3d378@mail.gmail.com>	<57c63afe0707090842q20e4b9c3u7dd4851821af2df1@mail.gmail.com>	<B6AFBBE0-A16C-4952-B3EA-AE8296AECA7D@johansorensen.com>	<57c63afe0707091044qfc85513q2cd2853e290d3b9d@mail.gmail.com>	<4692DED5.8090704@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707091822n51b6b18fne8a1c9d161d34b62@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4692E160.6080304@gmail.com>

David Chelimsky wrote:
> Did you run "ruby script/generate rspec"?

Yep; but this time I let it regenerate spec.opts

Turns out that the --drb flag is the culprit.

I'll file (or look for a similar) bug report.

Edward


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul  9 21:33:01 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 20:33:01 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] raise_controller_errors
In-Reply-To: <4692E160.6080304@gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707090731ob737113qa28680f3653cbcfe@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707090800l1b75aa34s6914514a2ffc81fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<43731001-FC81-4843-A2AF-95145D960610@johansorensen.com>
	<c18843c60707090838w4bbe8220s31d1b4c020e3d378@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707090842q20e4b9c3u7dd4851821af2df1@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6AFBBE0-A16C-4952-B3EA-AE8296AECA7D@johansorensen.com>
	<57c63afe0707091044qfc85513q2cd2853e290d3b9d@mail.gmail.com>
	<4692DED5.8090704@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707091822n51b6b18fne8a1c9d161d34b62@mail.gmail.com>
	<4692E160.6080304@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707091833p50a4dc25hd990465d75da69b2@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/9/07, Edward Ocampo-Gooding <edward.og at gmail.com> wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
> > Did you run "ruby script/generate rspec"?
>
> Yep; but this time I let it regenerate spec.opts
>
> Turns out that the --drb flag is the culprit.

I don't understand how --drb is related to this. You said you were
seeing a problem with a method that used to be in spec_helper.rb and
has been removed (raise_controller_errors). What does that have to do
with --drb?

>
> I'll file (or look for a similar) bug report.
>
> Edward
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From edward.og at gmail.com  Mon Jul  9 21:45:47 2007
From: edward.og at gmail.com (Edward Ocampo-Gooding)
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:45:47 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] raise_controller_errors
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707091833p50a4dc25hd990465d75da69b2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707090731ob737113qa28680f3653cbcfe@mail.gmail.com>	<2fff50390707090800l1b75aa34s6914514a2ffc81fb@mail.gmail.com>	<43731001-FC81-4843-A2AF-95145D960610@johansorensen.com>	<c18843c60707090838w4bbe8220s31d1b4c020e3d378@mail.gmail.com>	<57c63afe0707090842q20e4b9c3u7dd4851821af2df1@mail.gmail.com>	<B6AFBBE0-A16C-4952-B3EA-AE8296AECA7D@johansorensen.com>	<57c63afe0707091044qfc85513q2cd2853e290d3b9d@mail.gmail.com>	<4692DED5.8090704@gmail.com>	<57c63afe0707091822n51b6b18fne8a1c9d161d34b62@mail.gmail.com>	<4692E160.6080304@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707091833p50a4dc25hd990465d75da69b2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4692E4CB.7020107@gmail.com>

David Chelimsky wrote:
> On 7/9/07, Edward Ocampo-Gooding <edward.og at gmail.com> wrote:
>> David Chelimsky wrote:
>>> Did you run "ruby script/generate rspec"?
>> Yep; but this time I let it regenerate spec.opts
>>
>> Turns out that the --drb flag is the culprit.
> 
> I don't understand how --drb is related to this. You said you were
> seeing a problem with a method that used to be in spec_helper.rb and
> has been removed (raise_controller_errors). What does that have to do
> with --drb?

No, it's always been a virgin generated spec_helper.rb file; I was just 
wondering earlier if I was missing something in that.

I previously had --drb in my spec.opts and was having those "undefined 
local variable or method `raise_controller_errors'", but after removing 
--drb, everything works as expected.

Edward

From marcus at ahnve.com  Tue Jul 10 04:22:00 2007
From: marcus at ahnve.com (Marcus Ahnve)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:22:00 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Outside-In with RSpec on Rails
In-Reply-To: <dbc32d450707060913n82829cq9f07302f4001fd6c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <dbc32d450707060845q4e93d4e4ie0d25b4f4385c414@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707060855k501bf8a0l8a1eed29f76a95ee@mail.gmail.com>
	<dbc32d450707060913n82829cq9f07302f4001fd6c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4d4e79cc0707100122u3e38483gab17aad1179b3312@mail.gmail.com>

Whether or not to start with the view is a topic of great debate. Many
agile luminaries propose waiting with the ui for as long as possible,
whereas 37Signals for example won't start coding without a full HTML
mockup.

I've tried all different ways - even starting with the model - but I
agree with David, starting with the view seem to result in less
refactoring.

Cheers /Marcus

On 7/6/07, Jed Hurt <jed.hurt at gmail.com> wrote:
> Cool. I'll have to give it a try on my next project.
>
> On 7/6/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/6/07, Jed Hurt <jed.hurt at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I just read 'Mocks Aren't Stubs' and was intrigued by the notion of
> > > 'outside-in' TDD.
> > >
> > > As a Rails developer, I'm curious if others are employing this method
> > > when developing Rails applications using RSpec. Is it common practice
> > > (or even practical) to drive the development of a Rails app by
> > > starting with view specs, then controller specs, then models?
> >
> > Common? Not from what I've seen. I think that most ppl seem to start
> > w/ the controller.
> >
> > That said, I've been starting with the views with some success. I find
> > that when I've started with the controller, I've ended up doing a lot
> > more refactoring once that slice was done (i.e. a given
> > view/controller action/model trio) than I do when I start w/ the view.
> > In other words, the designs that emerge when I start w/ views are
> > closer to the designs that I want.
> >
> > This is just me. I'm not advocating that this will work for everybody.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>


-- 
http://marcus.ahnve.net

From aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com  Tue Jul 10 05:27:31 2007
From: aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com (aslak hellesoy)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:27:31 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Outside-In with RSpec on Rails
In-Reply-To: <4d4e79cc0707100122u3e38483gab17aad1179b3312@mail.gmail.com>
References: <dbc32d450707060845q4e93d4e4ie0d25b4f4385c414@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707060855k501bf8a0l8a1eed29f76a95ee@mail.gmail.com>
	<dbc32d450707060913n82829cq9f07302f4001fd6c@mail.gmail.com>
	<4d4e79cc0707100122u3e38483gab17aad1179b3312@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8d961d900707100227ua97013bic04695713e252669@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/10/07, Marcus Ahnve <marcus at ahnve.com> wrote:
> Whether or not to start with the view is a topic of great debate. Many
> agile luminaries propose waiting with the ui for as long as possible,
> whereas 37Signals for example won't start coding without a full HTML
> mockup.
>

I wouldn't call myself an agile luminary, but I am at least a strong proponent.

TDD means "write the test first"
BDD takes this idea to a more general level: "write the client first"
(the outside)

The design/implementation benefits you get from writing the test first
can also be achieved by writing the outside of your app first - it
leads you to write the code that the client needs, rather than trying
to guess it. The client is your test/spec OR a piece of your app that
is "farther out". Same thing really.

Aslak

> I've tried all different ways - even starting with the model - but I
> agree with David, starting with the view seem to result in less
> refactoring.
>
> Cheers /Marcus
>
> On 7/6/07, Jed Hurt <jed.hurt at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Cool. I'll have to give it a try on my next project.
> >
> > On 7/6/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/6/07, Jed Hurt <jed.hurt at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I just read 'Mocks Aren't Stubs' and was intrigued by the notion of
> > > > 'outside-in' TDD.
> > > >
> > > > As a Rails developer, I'm curious if others are employing this method
> > > > when developing Rails applications using RSpec. Is it common practice
> > > > (or even practical) to drive the development of a Rails app by
> > > > starting with view specs, then controller specs, then models?
> > >
> > > Common? Not from what I've seen. I think that most ppl seem to start
> > > w/ the controller.
> > >
> > > That said, I've been starting with the views with some success. I find
> > > that when I've started with the controller, I've ended up doing a lot
> > > more refactoring once that slice was done (i.e. a given
> > > view/controller action/model trio) than I do when I start w/ the view.
> > > In other words, the designs that emerge when I start w/ views are
> > > closer to the designs that I want.
> > >
> > > This is just me. I'm not advocating that this will work for everybody.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
>
>
> --
> http://marcus.ahnve.net
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From marcus at ahnve.com  Tue Jul 10 06:09:07 2007
From: marcus at ahnve.com (Marcus Ahnve)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:09:07 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Outside-In with RSpec on Rails
In-Reply-To: <8d961d900707100227ua97013bic04695713e252669@mail.gmail.com>
References: <dbc32d450707060845q4e93d4e4ie0d25b4f4385c414@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707060855k501bf8a0l8a1eed29f76a95ee@mail.gmail.com>
	<dbc32d450707060913n82829cq9f07302f4001fd6c@mail.gmail.com>
	<4d4e79cc0707100122u3e38483gab17aad1179b3312@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d961d900707100227ua97013bic04695713e252669@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4d4e79cc0707100309v38a937adu4949122ad4d2536a@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/10/07, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/10/07, Marcus Ahnve <marcus at ahnve.com> wrote:
> > Whether or not to start with the view is a topic of great debate. Many
> > agile luminaries propose waiting with the ui for as long as possible,
> > whereas 37Signals for example won't start coding without a full HTML
> > mockup.
> >
>
> I wouldn't call myself an agile luminary, but I am at least a strong proponent.
>
> TDD means "write the test first"
> BDD takes this idea to a more general level: "write the client first"
> (the outside)

That's a great and concise description.

> The design/implementation benefits you get from writing the test first
> can also be achieved by writing the outside of your app first - it
> leads you to write the code that the client needs, rather than trying
> to guess it. The client is your test/spec OR a piece of your app that
> is "farther out". Same thing really.

Good stuff - I haven't thought of the UI in that way before.

/Marcus

-- 
http://marcus.ahnve.net

From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Tue Jul 10 07:54:36 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:54:36 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Multiple calls to a class method
Message-ID: <7FCA0F82-F18F-478D-98E1-697DE3CCACA4@ashleymoran.me.uk>

Hi

Just wrote myself a Date.extract_from_rails_hash to handle parsing  
the "date(1i)", "date(2i)" parameters created in the controller  
params.  I've got a method that needs to call this either once or  
twice, depending on the contents of the form (one section of the form  
is rendered conditionally).  So I had two specs for the case where  
the second form section is included:

it "..." do
   Date.should_receive(:extract_from_rails_hash).
     with(REQUEST_ARGS_WITH_FINANCE_AGREEMENT 
[:vehicle], :registration_date).
     and_return(Date.new(2006, 12, 1))
   # ...
end

it "..." do
   Date.should_receive(:extract_from_rails_hash).
     with(REQUEST_ARGS_WITH_FINANCE_AGREEMENT 
[:finance_agreement], :start_date).
     and_return(Date.new(2006, 12, 4))
   # ...
end

In each of these specs I only care about one of the calls, but they  
fail because the Date method is being called twice, and it reports  
the other call as an error.

What is the thinking behind this?  I know you shouldn't have  
unspecified code, but it seems restrictive to force all calls to a  
method to be covered in the same example.

Thanks
Ashley


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jul 10 08:16:20 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:16:20 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Multiple calls to a class method
In-Reply-To: <7FCA0F82-F18F-478D-98E1-697DE3CCACA4@ashleymoran.me.uk>
References: <7FCA0F82-F18F-478D-98E1-697DE3CCACA4@ashleymoran.me.uk>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707100516x694cf7b8h94ced691b3fef2d6@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/10/07, Ashley Moran <work at ashleymoran.me.uk> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Just wrote myself a Date.extract_from_rails_hash to handle parsing
> the "date(1i)", "date(2i)" parameters created in the controller
> params.  I've got a method that needs to call this either once or
> twice, depending on the contents of the form (one section of the form
> is rendered conditionally).  So I had two specs for the case where
> the second form section is included:
>
> it "..." do
>    Date.should_receive(:extract_from_rails_hash).
>      with(REQUEST_ARGS_WITH_FINANCE_AGREEMENT
> [:vehicle], :registration_date).
>      and_return(Date.new(2006, 12, 1))
>    # ...
> end
>
> it "..." do
>    Date.should_receive(:extract_from_rails_hash).
>      with(REQUEST_ARGS_WITH_FINANCE_AGREEMENT
> [:finance_agreement], :start_date).
>      and_return(Date.new(2006, 12, 4))
>    # ...
> end
>
> In each of these specs I only care about one of the calls, but they
> fail because the Date method is being called twice, and it reports
> the other call as an error.
>
> What is the thinking behind this?  I know you shouldn't have
> unspecified code, but it seems restrictive to force all calls to a
> method to be covered in the same example.

This is pretty standard in mocking frameworks. In fact, your
frustration was Jim Weirich's motivation for writing Flexmock, so you
may want to give that framework a shot.

Using RSpec's mocks, the way I get around this is to stub the call in
before(:each) and the mock the call in the example:

describe "something" do
  before(:each) do
    Date.stub!(:extract_from_rails_hash)
  end
  it "..." do
    Date.should_receive(:extract_from_rails_hash).
      with(one_set_of_args).
      and_return(Date.new(2006, 12, 1))
    # ...
  end

  it "..." do
    Date.should_receive(:extract_from_rails_hash).
      with(another_set_of_args).
      and_return(Date.new(2006, 12, 1))
    # ...
  end
end

This tells the Date class object to ignore all extract_from_rails_hash
messages except the one that you are interested in in th example.

David

>
> Thanks
> Ashley
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Tue Jul 10 10:19:55 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:19:55 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Multiple calls to a class method
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707100516x694cf7b8h94ced691b3fef2d6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7FCA0F82-F18F-478D-98E1-697DE3CCACA4@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<57c63afe0707100516x694cf7b8h94ced691b3fef2d6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1D5EB2A0-4821-43E4-A523-608C52AE16DA@ashleymoran.me.uk>


On 10 Jul 2007, at 13:16, David Chelimsky wrote:

> This is pretty standard in mocking frameworks. In fact, your
> frustration was Jim Weirich's motivation for writing Flexmock, so you
> may want to give that framework a shot.

<snip>

> This tells the Date class object to ignore all extract_from_rails_hash
> messages except the one that you are interested in in th example.

Thanks for clearing that up.  I might take a look at FlexMock some  
time and see how it compares.  I don't run into this problem often so  
it was more of a philosophical question but nice to know there's at  
least a workaround.

Regards Ashley




From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Wed Jul 11 06:42:15 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:42:15 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] "they" synonym for "it"?
Message-ID: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>

I've noticed that I phrase a lot of shared behaviours in plural, eg

   describe "All payment_details views"

How about a "they" alias to "it" so you can write

   describe "All payment_details views", :shared => true do
     they "should have a card number field" do
       # ...
     end
   end

WDYT?

Ashley



From aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com  Wed Jul 11 07:52:54 2007
From: aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com (aslak hellesoy)
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:52:54 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] "they" synonym for "it"?
In-Reply-To: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
Message-ID: <8d961d900707110452j2d9d67f0g29864d24fa31c6d9@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/11/07, Ashley Moran <work at ashleymoran.me.uk> wrote:
> I've noticed that I phrase a lot of shared behaviours in plural, eg
>
>    describe "All payment_details views"
>
> How about a "they" alias to "it" so you can write
>
>    describe "All payment_details views", :shared => true do
>      they "should have a card number field" do
>        # ...
>      end
>    end
>
> WDYT?
>

I'm a little worried that If we add this alias, people are going to
want umpteen other aliases like it_should etc.

It should be easy for you to just alias that method locally in your project

Aslak

> Ashley
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 11 08:47:29 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 07:47:29 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] "they" synonym for "it"?
In-Reply-To: <8d961d900707110452j2d9d67f0g29864d24fa31c6d9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<8d961d900707110452j2d9d67f0g29864d24fa31c6d9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707110547g3fbf11d7s10767fdc8a97e1f0@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/11/07, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/11/07, Ashley Moran <work at ashleymoran.me.uk> wrote:
> > I've noticed that I phrase a lot of shared behaviours in plural, eg
> >
> >    describe "All payment_details views"
> >
> > How about a "they" alias to "it" so you can write
> >
> >    describe "All payment_details views", :shared => true do
> >      they "should have a card number field" do
> >        # ...
> >      end
> >    end
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
>
> I'm a little worried that If we add this alias, people are going to
> want umpteen other aliases like it_should etc.
>
> It should be easy for you to just alias that method locally in your project

+1
We want to keep things simple.

>
> Aslak
>
> > Ashley
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Wed Jul 11 09:01:48 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:01:48 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] "they" synonym for "it"?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707110547g3fbf11d7s10767fdc8a97e1f0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<8d961d900707110452j2d9d67f0g29864d24fa31c6d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707110547g3fbf11d7s10767fdc8a97e1f0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <097925D8-DBD5-46F6-AB0E-AC335DC053CA@ashleymoran.me.uk>


On 11 Jul 2007, at 13:47, David Chelimsky wrote:

>> It should be easy for you to just alias that method locally in  
>> your project
>
> +1
> We want to keep things simple.


Fair point!



From win at wincent.com  Wed Jul 11 09:25:49 2007
From: win at wincent.com (Wincent Colaiuta)
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:25:49 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] "they" synonym for "it"?
In-Reply-To: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
Message-ID: <7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>

El 11/7/2007, a las 12:42, Ashley Moran escribi?:

> I've noticed that I phrase a lot of shared behaviours in plural, eg
>
>    describe "All payment_details views"
>
> How about a "they" alias to "it" so you can write
>
>    describe "All payment_details views", :shared => true do
>      they "should have a card number field" do
>        # ...
>      end
>    end
>
> WDYT?

In a case like this, isn't "All" the same as "any" or even "a", or  
even omitting the article entirely?

For example:

   describe 'Any payment_details view' do
     it 'should have a card number field' do
       ...

   describe 'A payment_details view' do
     it 'should have a card number field' do
       ...

   describe 'payment_details view' do
     it 'should have a card number field' do
       ...

   # or whatever the class is called
   describe PaymentDetailsView do
     it 'should have a card number field' do
       ...

Cheers,
Wincent



From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 11 09:29:26 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:29:26 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] "they" synonym for "it"?
In-Reply-To: <7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707110629k2569f5dam8803550f624a88b9@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/11/07, Wincent Colaiuta <win at wincent.com> wrote:
> El 11/7/2007, a las 12:42, Ashley Moran escribi?:
>
> > I've noticed that I phrase a lot of shared behaviours in plural, eg
> >
> >    describe "All payment_details views"
> >
> > How about a "they" alias to "it" so you can write
> >
> >    describe "All payment_details views", :shared => true do
> >      they "should have a card number field" do
> >        # ...
> >      end
> >    end
> >
> > WDYT?
>
> In a case like this, isn't "All" the same as "any" or even "a", or
> even omitting the article entirely?
>
> For example:
>
>    describe 'Any payment_details view' do
>      it 'should have a card number field' do
>        ...
>
>    describe 'A payment_details view' do
>      it 'should have a card number field' do
>        ...
>
>    describe 'payment_details view' do
>      it 'should have a card number field' do
>        ...
>
>    # or whatever the class is called
>    describe PaymentDetailsView do
>      it 'should have a card number field' do
>        ...

Excellent point. I'm sure the code in each example would be dealing
with a single object, not all objects.

>
> Cheers,
> Wincent
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Wed Jul 11 09:32:36 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:32:36 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] "they" synonym for "it"?
In-Reply-To: <7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>
Message-ID: <9B5D1202-C0B4-417D-ADD5-96A884519665@ashleymoran.me.uk>


On 11 Jul 2007, at 14:25, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:

> In a case like this, isn't "All" the same as "any" or even "a", or
> even omitting the article entirely?

Mmm, I noticed that myself not long after I posted lol.  I've already  
started rewording everything...


From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Wed Jul 11 09:35:42 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:35:42 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] "they" synonym for "it"?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707110629k2569f5dam8803550f624a88b9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>
	<57c63afe0707110629k2569f5dam8803550f624a88b9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A3D91945-9934-42E3-B295-DD28840B05C6@ashleymoran.me.uk>


On 11 Jul 2007, at 14:29, David Chelimsky wrote:

> Excellent point. I'm sure the code in each example would be dealing
> with a single object, not all objects.

We had a Polish guy start here last year (sadly poached by a company  
in London now).  When I showed him RSpec I told him the thing he  
would find hardest was not the spec code, it was the English involved  
in writing the descriptions.  Might be useful if I followed my own  
advice :)


From pedro.delgallego at gmail.com  Wed Jul 11 10:00:52 2007
From: pedro.delgallego at gmail.com (Pedro Del Gallego)
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:00:52 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] "they" synonym for "it"?
In-Reply-To: <A3D91945-9934-42E3-B295-DD28840B05C6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>
	<57c63afe0707110629k2569f5dam8803550f624a88b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3D91945-9934-42E3-B295-DD28840B05C6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
Message-ID: <2e93189b0707110700n2c59ff1an2545544e3bd87ac8@mail.gmail.com>

> We had a Polish guy start here last year (sadly poached by a company
> in London now).  When I showed him RSpec I told him the thing he
> would find hardest was not the spec code, it was the English involved
> in writing the descriptions.  Might be useful if I followed my own
> advice :)

 Thats my biggest problem with rspec, (I'm a non english speaker
working in a German/English environment)  It would be great a guide or
a tips list to make our specs more  readebles, Something like 10
English tips to improve your specs readability ;)

-- 
-------------------------------------
Pedro Del Gallego

Email              :   pedro.delgallego at gmail.com

From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Wed Jul 11 11:06:11 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:06:11 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] "they" synonym for "it"?
In-Reply-To: <2e93189b0707110700n2c59ff1an2545544e3bd87ac8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>
	<57c63afe0707110629k2569f5dam8803550f624a88b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3D91945-9934-42E3-B295-DD28840B05C6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2e93189b0707110700n2c59ff1an2545544e3bd87ac8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <38D81635-7A4B-44B4-B71A-56A86A1591C2@ashleymoran.me.uk>


On 11 Jul 2007, at 15:00, Pedro Del Gallego wrote:

>  Thats my biggest problem with rspec, (I'm a non english speaker
> working in a German/English environment)  It would be great a guide or
> a tips list to make our specs more  readebles, Something like 10
> English tips to improve your specs readability ;)


Don't think I can come up with 10 off the top of my head but I always  
told Pawel to follow the rule "phrase descriptions as GIVEN WHEN  
THEN".  There's plenty of better examples on this list and elsewhere,  
but basically if I have an idea like this:

   A cow prodded with a stick should moo

I think:
   GIVEN="a cow", WHEN="prodded with a stick", THEN="moo"

and turn it into this code:
   describe Cow do
     before(:each) do
       @cow = Cow.new
     end
     it 'should say "moo" when sent prod_with_stick' do
       @cow.prod_with_stick.should == "moo"
     end
   end

It doesn't apply rigidly to every situation, but 90% of the time, if  
I keep chanting GIVEN WHEN THEN I write clean, focussed specs.  The  
rest is mainly vocabulary (although sometimes it can be hard to  
phrase something clearly).

Ashley

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 11 11:12:35 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:12:35 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] "they" synonym for "it"?
In-Reply-To: <38D81635-7A4B-44B4-B71A-56A86A1591C2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>
	<57c63afe0707110629k2569f5dam8803550f624a88b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3D91945-9934-42E3-B295-DD28840B05C6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2e93189b0707110700n2c59ff1an2545544e3bd87ac8@mail.gmail.com>
	<38D81635-7A4B-44B4-B71A-56A86A1591C2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707110812p3a8af222oc2da9c91e05a120a@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/11/07, Ashley Moran <work at ashleymoran.me.uk> wrote:
>
> On 11 Jul 2007, at 15:00, Pedro Del Gallego wrote:
>
> >  Thats my biggest problem with rspec, (I'm a non english speaker
> > working in a German/English environment)  It would be great a guide or
> > a tips list to make our specs more  readebles, Something like 10
> > English tips to improve your specs readability ;)
>
>
> Don't think I can come up with 10 off the top of my head but I always
> told Pawel to follow the rule "phrase descriptions as GIVEN WHEN
> THEN".  There's plenty of better examples on this list and elsewhere,
> but basically if I have an idea like this:
>
>    A cow prodded with a stick should moo
>
> I think:
>    GIVEN="a cow", WHEN="prodded with a stick", THEN="moo"
>
> and turn it into this code:
>    describe Cow do
>      before(:each) do
>        @cow = Cow.new
>      end
>      it 'should say "moo" when sent prod_with_stick' do
>        @cow.prod_with_stick.should == "moo"
>      end
>    end
>
> It doesn't apply rigidly to every situation, but 90% of the time, if
> I keep chanting GIVEN WHEN THEN I write clean, focussed specs.  The
> rest is mainly vocabulary (although sometimes it can be hard to
> phrase something clearly).

I've been in that habit too. In general, I want the GIVEN expressed in
the String passed to describe and/or before(:each). The WHEN and THEN
should be in the example. As Ashley suggests, this isn't 100% of the
time, but I find that the more I stick to this the easier it is to
grok everything when looking back.

Also, I try to stick to one WHEN and one THEN per example. This means
that if there are mocks involved, my examples generally look like
this:

it "should foo when bar" do
  collaborator.should_receive(:baz)
  thing.bar
end

OR

it "should foo when bar" do
  thing.bar
  thing.baz.should == something
end

BUT NEVER

it "should foo when bar" do
  collaborator.should_receive(:baz)
  thing.bar
  thing.fu.should == something
end

FWIW.

Cheers,
David



>
> Ashley
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From anthony at digitalphenom.com  Wed Jul 11 12:12:52 2007
From: anthony at digitalphenom.com (Anthony Carlos)
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:12:52 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] "they" synonym for "it"?
In-Reply-To: <38D81635-7A4B-44B4-B71A-56A86A1591C2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>
	<57c63afe0707110629k2569f5dam8803550f624a88b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3D91945-9934-42E3-B295-DD28840B05C6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2e93189b0707110700n2c59ff1an2545544e3bd87ac8@mail.gmail.com>
	<38D81635-7A4B-44B4-B71A-56A86A1591C2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
Message-ID: <AF6BBC7B-CCC3-414A-8BC9-98FB45A259D9@digitalphenom.com>

I think this is a nugget of experience about which it's worth  
shouting. I've read lots of articles about the theory behind BDD and  
TDD, but I need(ed) help learning how to phrase and write specs. That  
is, what to spec and how to write it; what is good style, and what is  
not so good. I'd love to come up with a guide like "The Elements of  
Style" by Strunk, White, et. al, which I used in college to really  
learn how to write.

Perhaps we need to bundle "The Elements of RSpec Style" with the  
documentation on the website. I'm happy to collect and edit suggestions.

What do you think?

-Anthony

On Jul 11, 2007, at 11:06 AM, Ashley Moran wrote:

>
> On 11 Jul 2007, at 15:00, Pedro Del Gallego wrote:
>
>>  Thats my biggest problem with rspec, (I'm a non english speaker
>> working in a German/English environment)  It would be great a  
>> guide or
>> a tips list to make our specs more  readebles, Something like 10
>> English tips to improve your specs readability ;)
>
>
> Don't think I can come up with 10 off the top of my head but I always
> told Pawel to follow the rule "phrase descriptions as GIVEN WHEN
> THEN".  There's plenty of better examples on this list and elsewhere,
> but basically if I have an idea like this:
>
>    A cow prodded with a stick should moo
>
> I think:
>    GIVEN="a cow", WHEN="prodded with a stick", THEN="moo"
>
> and turn it into this code:
>    describe Cow do
>      before(:each) do
>        @cow = Cow.new
>      end
>      it 'should say "moo" when sent prod_with_stick' do
>        @cow.prod_with_stick.should == "moo"
>      end
>    end
>
> It doesn't apply rigidly to every situation, but 90% of the time, if
> I keep chanting GIVEN WHEN THEN I write clean, focussed specs.  The
> rest is mainly vocabulary (although sometimes it can be hard to
> phrase something clearly).
>
> Ashley
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From tom at experthuman.com  Wed Jul 11 12:31:48 2007
From: tom at experthuman.com (Tom Stuart)
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:31:48 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] "they" synonym for "it"?
In-Reply-To: <AF6BBC7B-CCC3-414A-8BC9-98FB45A259D9@digitalphenom.com>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>
	<57c63afe0707110629k2569f5dam8803550f624a88b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3D91945-9934-42E3-B295-DD28840B05C6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2e93189b0707110700n2c59ff1an2545544e3bd87ac8@mail.gmail.com>
	<38D81635-7A4B-44B4-B71A-56A86A1591C2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<AF6BBC7B-CCC3-414A-8BC9-98FB45A259D9@digitalphenom.com>
Message-ID: <13F6DF51-EC9F-4161-8C52-C5264C7B075B@experthuman.com>

On 11 Jul 2007, at 17:12, Anthony Carlos wrote:
> Perhaps we need to bundle "The Elements of RSpec Style" with the
> documentation on the website. I'm happy to collect and edit  
> suggestions.

I would like to enthusiastically (albeit fundamentally unhelpfully)  
voice my support for this idea. The main win of RSpec over Test::Unit  
is the framework of linguistic constraints it provides to help guide  
people down the right path, but the main weakness is that it still  
doesn't go far enough -- most conversations I have with people about  
BDD are concerned with the continuing struggle to work out what the  
"right way" to write specs is. Toy examples (cf Stack, Account) are  
unhelpful in this regard because they demonstrate the common-sense  
mechanics of RSpec without really delivering any accumulated wisdom  
about how real specs should look and behave, and that's the hard part  
to grasp when you're trying to learn this stuff.

I realise there's a well-intentioned progressive reticence to preach  
a dogmatic gospel about how specs should be named, designed and  
constructed, but as with Rails I believe that people derive genuine  
comfort and encouragement from being told The One Correct Way when  
they're starting out, and once they become competent enough to have  
dissenting opinions of their own they rarely seem to have a problem  
with enacting them. There are lots of gems of pragmatic wisdom dotted  
throughout the rspec-users archives -- yeah, David's "one WHEN/THEN  
per example" is a great one -- and I think it'd be tremendously  
useful to collect and promote these as Truth even if no expert quite  
believes that they are.

Cheers,
-Tom

From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Wed Jul 11 12:35:12 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:35:12 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] "they" synonym for "it"?
In-Reply-To: <AF6BBC7B-CCC3-414A-8BC9-98FB45A259D9@digitalphenom.com>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>
	<57c63afe0707110629k2569f5dam8803550f624a88b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3D91945-9934-42E3-B295-DD28840B05C6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2e93189b0707110700n2c59ff1an2545544e3bd87ac8@mail.gmail.com>
	<38D81635-7A4B-44B4-B71A-56A86A1591C2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<AF6BBC7B-CCC3-414A-8BC9-98FB45A259D9@digitalphenom.com>
Message-ID: <C4D12D24-D9AA-439E-95D1-E929D2F684E6@ashleymoran.me.uk>


On 11 Jul 2007, at 17:12, Anthony Carlos wrote:

> What do you think?


I think there's a lot of merit in that idea.  I've come across loads  
of situations where it was not obvious how to write the specs or code  
so that the code or specs (respectively) are clear and useful.  I'm  
sure they could be distilled to a set of template situations - I'd be  
happy to submit examples.

When people ask what developing with tests is like I tend to say that  
the difference between using RSpec and writing specs is like the  
difference between learning how a paintbrush works and learning how  
to paint a picture.  RSpec's easy enough to pick up, but I wish I  
could point people at a more theoretical how-to that helps with the  
difficult "how do I spec this?" problems.

Ashley




From daniel at danielfischer.com  Thu Jul 12 04:21:18 2007
From: daniel at danielfischer.com (Fischer, Daniel)
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 01:21:18 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Agh, this is annoying. Why is this happening?
Message-ID: <7e565b5c0707120121s58d10c2coaba70e289294fd66@mail.gmail.com>

My problem:

Mock 'Task_1005' received unexpected message :user_id= with (1)

No matter what I do to try to stub that out it will still fail out and give
me that message.

Here is my spec


describe TasksController, "handling POST /tasks" do
  before(:each) do
    @task = mock_model(Task, :to_param => "1", :save => true)
    Task.stub!(:new).and_return(@task)
    @user = mock_model(User)
    @user.stub!(:id).and_return(1)
    @user.stub!(:login).and_return("moo")
    User.stub!(:find).and_return(@user)
    @params = {}
  end

  def do_post
    @request.session[:user] = @user.id
    post :create, :task => @params
  end

  it "should create a new task" do
    Task.should_receive(:user_id).with(@user.id).and_return(true)
    Task.should_receive(:new).with(@params).and_return(@task)
    do_post
  end

  it "should redirect to /tasks" do
    Task.should_receive(:user_id).with(@user.id).and_return(true)
    do_post
    response.should redirect_to(home_url)
  end
end

And my controller:

  def create
    @task = Task.new(params[:task])
    @task.user_id = current_user.id
    @task.status = Status.find_by_name('in progress')

    respond_to do |format|
      if @task.save
        flash[:notice] = 'Task was successfully created.'
        format.html { redirect_to home_url }
        format.xml  { head :created, :location => task_url(@task) }
      else
        flash[:error] = @task.errors
        format.html { redirect_to home_url }
        format.xml  { render :xml => @task.errors.to_xml }
      end
    end
  end

So obviously it's failing with the current_user.id thing. I'm using
restful_authentication.

Thanks!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070712/266c9c6d/attachment-0001.html 

From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Thu Jul 12 05:06:49 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:06:49 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Agh, this is annoying. Why is this happening?
In-Reply-To: <7e565b5c0707120121s58d10c2coaba70e289294fd66@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7e565b5c0707120121s58d10c2coaba70e289294fd66@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4135AB7D-2A30-4E69-A056-FFFC8D5D152C@ashleymoran.me.uk>


On 12 Jul 2007, at 09:21, Fischer, Daniel wrote:

> My problem:
>
> Mock 'Task_1005' received unexpected message :user_id= with (1)
>
> No matter what I do to try to stub that out it will still fail out  
> and give me that message.
>
> Here is my spec
>
>
> describe TasksController, "handling POST /tasks" do
>   before(:each) do
>     @task = mock_model(Task, :to_param => "1", :save => true)
       @task = mock_model(Task, :to_param => "1", :save =>  
true, :user_id= => nil)
>
>     Task.stub!(:new).and_return(@task)
>     @user = mock_model(User)
>     @user.stub!(:id).and_return(1)
>     @user.stub!(:login).and_return("moo")
>     User.stub!(:find).and_return(@user)
>     @params = {}
>   end
>
>   def do_post
>     @request.session[:user] = @ user.id
>     post :create, :task => @params
>   end
>
>   it "should create a new task" do
>     Task.should_receive(:user_id).with(@user.id).and_return(true)
       @task.should_receive(:user_id=).with(@user.id).and_return(true)
>
>     Task.should_receive(:new).with(@params).and_return(@task)
>     do_post
>   end
>
>   it "should redirect to /tasks" do
>     Task.should_receive(:user_id).with(@user.id ).and_return(true)
>     do_post
>     response.should redirect_to(home_url)
>   end
> end
>
> And my controller:
>
>   def create
>     @task = Task.new(params[:task])
>     @task.user_id = current_user.id
>     @task.status = Status.find_by_name('in progress')
>
>     respond_to do |format|
>       if @task.save
>         flash[:notice] = 'Task was successfully created.'
>         format.html { redirect_to home_url }
>         format.xml  { head :created, :location => task_url(@task) }
>       else
>         flash[:error] = @task.errors
>         format.html { redirect_to home_url }
>         format.xml  { render :xml => @ task.errors.to_xml }
>       end
>     end
>   end
>
> So obviously it's failing with the current_user.id thing. I'm using  
> restful_authentication.

Daniel,

It looks like it's failing for a different reason than you think, if  
I understood your code.  (Although I only woke up an hour ago and by  
rights I should still be in bed...)  I've never used  
restful_authentication, so I don't know about "current_user", but I  
suspect it needs to be stubbed out - otherwise you are running some  
sort of semi-integration test, testing the plugin as well as your own  
code.

Also, like David pointed out yesterday, you probably shouldn't  
combine specs.  You want to split "should create a new task" into  
"should create a new task" and it "should assign the current user's  
id to the new task".  Also there should be no need to put an  
expectation on Task (or @task?) in "should redirect to /tasks".

That's my interpretation of things, please correct me if I  
misunderstood.

Ashley




From aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com  Thu Jul 12 05:33:08 2007
From: aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com (aslak hellesoy)
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:33:08 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Agh, this is annoying. Why is this happening?
In-Reply-To: <7e565b5c0707120121s58d10c2coaba70e289294fd66@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7e565b5c0707120121s58d10c2coaba70e289294fd66@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8d961d900707120233q3c70ca59o6408886c3eebb545@mail.gmail.com>

This doesn't make sense:

  Task.should_receive(:user_id).with(@user.id).and_return(true)

It means that you expect this:

  foo = Task.user_id(@user_id) # foo will be true

I suspect you rather want this to happen:

  @task.user_id = @user_id

In which case your mock setup should be:

  @task.should_receive(:user_id=).with(@user.id)

Aslak

On 7/12/07, Fischer, Daniel <daniel at danielfischer.com> wrote:
> My problem:
>
> Mock 'Task_1005' received unexpected message :user_id= with (1)
>
> No matter what I do to try to stub that out it will still fail out and give
> me that message.
>
> Here is my spec
>
>
> describe TasksController, "handling POST /tasks" do
>   before(:each) do
>     @task = mock_model(Task, :to_param => "1", :save => true)
>     Task.stub!(:new).and_return(@task)
>     @user = mock_model(User)
>     @user.stub!(:id).and_return(1)
>     @user.stub!(:login).and_return("moo")
>     User.stub!(:find).and_return(@user)
>     @params = {}
>   end
>
>   def do_post
>     @request.session[:user] = @ user.id
>     post :create, :task => @params
>   end
>
>   it "should create a new task" do
>     Task.should_receive(:user_id).with(@user.id).and_return(true)
>
> Task.should_receive(:new).with(@params).and_return(@task)
>     do_post
>   end
>
>   it "should redirect to /tasks" do
>     Task.should_receive(:user_id).with(@user.id ).and_return(true)
>     do_post
>     response.should redirect_to(home_url)
>   end
> end
>
> And my controller:
>
>   def create
>     @task = Task.new(params[:task])
>     @task.user_id = current_user.id
>      @task.status = Status.find_by_name('in progress')
>
>     respond_to do |format|
>       if @task.save
>         flash[:notice] = 'Task was successfully created.'
>         format.html { redirect_to home_url }
>         format.xml  { head :created, :location => task_url(@task) }
>       else
>         flash[:error] = @task.errors
>         format.html { redirect_to home_url }
>         format.xml  { render :xml => @ task.errors.to_xml }
>       end
>     end
>   end
>
> So obviously it's failing with the current_user.id thing. I'm using
> restful_authentication.
>
> Thanks!
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul 12 07:42:16 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:42:16 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Agh, this is annoying. Why is this happening?
In-Reply-To: <8d961d900707120233q3c70ca59o6408886c3eebb545@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7e565b5c0707120121s58d10c2coaba70e289294fd66@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d961d900707120233q3c70ca59o6408886c3eebb545@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707120442r3cd88be1ic740a27208b8f212@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/12/07, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> This doesn't make sense:
>
>   Task.should_receive(:user_id).with(@user.id).and_return(true)
>
> It means that you expect this:
>
>   foo = Task.user_id(@user_id) # foo will be true
>
> I suspect you rather want this to happen:
>
>   @task.user_id = @user_id
>
> In which case your mock setup should be:
>
>   @task.should_receive(:user_id=).with(@user.id)

This is also supported by the error message you are getting:

Mock 'Task_1005' received unexpected message :user_id= with (1)

It states that the unexpected message is :user_id=, not :user_id. Easy
enough thing to miss. Very subtle. But I'll bet you won't miss it
again :)

Cheers,
David

>
> Aslak
>
> On 7/12/07, Fischer, Daniel <daniel at danielfischer.com> wrote:
> > My problem:
> >
> > Mock 'Task_1005' received unexpected message :user_id= with (1)
> >
> > No matter what I do to try to stub that out it will still fail out and give
> > me that message.
> >
> > Here is my spec
> >
> >
> > describe TasksController, "handling POST /tasks" do
> >   before(:each) do
> >     @task = mock_model(Task, :to_param => "1", :save => true)
> >     Task.stub!(:new).and_return(@task)
> >     @user = mock_model(User)
> >     @user.stub!(:id).and_return(1)
> >     @user.stub!(:login).and_return("moo")
> >     User.stub!(:find).and_return(@user)
> >     @params = {}
> >   end
> >
> >   def do_post
> >     @request.session[:user] = @ user.id
> >     post :create, :task => @params
> >   end
> >
> >   it "should create a new task" do
> >     Task.should_receive(:user_id).with(@user.id).and_return(true)
> >
> > Task.should_receive(:new).with(@params).and_return(@task)
> >     do_post
> >   end
> >
> >   it "should redirect to /tasks" do
> >     Task.should_receive(:user_id).with(@user.id ).and_return(true)
> >     do_post
> >     response.should redirect_to(home_url)
> >   end
> > end
> >
> > And my controller:
> >
> >   def create
> >     @task = Task.new(params[:task])
> >     @task.user_id = current_user.id
> >      @task.status = Status.find_by_name('in progress')
> >
> >     respond_to do |format|
> >       if @task.save
> >         flash[:notice] = 'Task was successfully created.'
> >         format.html { redirect_to home_url }
> >         format.xml  { head :created, :location => task_url(@task) }
> >       else
> >         flash[:error] = @task.errors
> >         format.html { redirect_to home_url }
> >         format.xml  { render :xml => @ task.errors.to_xml }
> >       end
> >     end
> >   end
> >
> > So obviously it's failing with the current_user.id thing. I'm using
> > restful_authentication.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From robert.feldt at bth.se  Thu Jul 12 09:19:40 2007
From: robert.feldt at bth.se (Robert Feldt)
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:19:40 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Promoting options to heckle?
In-Reply-To: <87a13e220707120549w532a74a3w9e1ff6dd2f816de8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87a13e220707120549w532a74a3w9e1ff6dd2f816de8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87a13e220707120619o77a0f6b3o40dc0c423774fd9e@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm trying out RSpec with the heckle option (for mutation testing).

Problem is that heckle goes into an infinite loop when running it on an
example. I want to send a "--verbose" to heckle but can't find a way to do
that through the spec binary. Since this is not an uncommon situation when
using heckle I would like this to be supported in some way by RSpec.
Thoughts?

Best regards,

/Robert Feldt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070712/d92af696/attachment.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul 12 12:12:40 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:12:40 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Promoting options to heckle?
In-Reply-To: <87a13e220707120619o77a0f6b3o40dc0c423774fd9e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87a13e220707120549w532a74a3w9e1ff6dd2f816de8@mail.gmail.com>
	<87a13e220707120619o77a0f6b3o40dc0c423774fd9e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707120912x1a7708feo68b4d187ba651785@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/12/07, Robert Feldt <robert.feldt at bth.se> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying out RSpec with the heckle option (for mutation testing).
>
>
> Problem is that heckle goes into an infinite loop when running it on an
> example. I want to send a "--verbose" to heckle but can't find a way to do
> that through the spec binary. Since this is not an uncommon situation when
> using heckle I would like this to be supported in some way by RSpec.
> Thoughts?

Hi Robert,

I can see this working a couple of ways. We've got a -b switch which
results in a complete backtrace showing up. That seems more or less
synonymous with the notion of --verbose, which we don't have
explicitly. So, what if we added a --verbose switch that affected any
other options, like Heckle, or RCov? I think that would be simpler
than trying to come up with targeted --verbose switches.

WDYT?

>
> Best regards,
>
> /Robert Feldt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From anthony at digitalphenom.com  Thu Jul 12 12:20:23 2007
From: anthony at digitalphenom.com (Anthony Carlos)
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:20:23 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] "they" synonym for "it"?
In-Reply-To: <C4D12D24-D9AA-439E-95D1-E929D2F684E6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>
	<57c63afe0707110629k2569f5dam8803550f624a88b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3D91945-9934-42E3-B295-DD28840B05C6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2e93189b0707110700n2c59ff1an2545544e3bd87ac8@mail.gmail.com>
	<38D81635-7A4B-44B4-B71A-56A86A1591C2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<AF6BBC7B-CCC3-414A-8BC9-98FB45A259D9@digitalphenom.com>
	<C4D12D24-D9AA-439E-95D1-E929D2F684E6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
Message-ID: <619209E4-B843-4DFE-81CB-F050A39F26AA@digitalphenom.com>

If you guys don't mind, I'm going to create a sample web page with  
this concept on it, stealing from Ashley and David's writings. If  
people like it, perhaps we can get it included in the documentation.

On Jul 11, 2007, at 12:35 PM, Ashley Moran wrote:

>
> On 11 Jul 2007, at 17:12, Anthony Carlos wrote:
>
>> What do you think?
>
>
> I think there's a lot of merit in that idea.  I've come across loads
> of situations where it was not obvious how to write the specs or code
> so that the code or specs (respectively) are clear and useful.  I'm
> sure they could be distilled to a set of template situations - I'd be
> happy to submit examples.
>
> When people ask what developing with tests is like I tend to say that
> the difference between using RSpec and writing specs is like the
> difference between learning how a paintbrush works and learning how
> to paint a picture.  RSpec's easy enough to pick up, but I wish I
> could point people at a more theoretical how-to that helps with the
> difficult "how do I spec this?" problems.
>
> Ashley
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com  Thu Jul 12 12:53:46 2007
From: aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com (aslak hellesoy)
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:53:46 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] "they" synonym for "it"?
In-Reply-To: <619209E4-B843-4DFE-81CB-F050A39F26AA@digitalphenom.com>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>
	<57c63afe0707110629k2569f5dam8803550f624a88b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3D91945-9934-42E3-B295-DD28840B05C6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2e93189b0707110700n2c59ff1an2545544e3bd87ac8@mail.gmail.com>
	<38D81635-7A4B-44B4-B71A-56A86A1591C2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<AF6BBC7B-CCC3-414A-8BC9-98FB45A259D9@digitalphenom.com>
	<C4D12D24-D9AA-439E-95D1-E929D2F684E6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<619209E4-B843-4DFE-81CB-F050A39F26AA@digitalphenom.com>
Message-ID: <8d961d900707120953k7f833df3g279ea7becdff4ac7@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/12/07, Anthony Carlos <anthony at digitalphenom.com> wrote:
> If you guys don't mind, I'm going to create a sample web page with
> this concept on it, stealing from Ashley and David's writings. If
> people like it, perhaps we can get it included in the documentation.
>

Go ahead, that would be great!

Aslak

> On Jul 11, 2007, at 12:35 PM, Ashley Moran wrote:
>
> >
> > On 11 Jul 2007, at 17:12, Anthony Carlos wrote:
> >
> >> What do you think?
> >
> >
> > I think there's a lot of merit in that idea.  I've come across loads
> > of situations where it was not obvious how to write the specs or code
> > so that the code or specs (respectively) are clear and useful.  I'm
> > sure they could be distilled to a set of template situations - I'd be
> > happy to submit examples.
> >
> > When people ask what developing with tests is like I tend to say that
> > the difference between using RSpec and writing specs is like the
> > difference between learning how a paintbrush works and learning how
> > to paint a picture.  RSpec's easy enough to pick up, but I wish I
> > could point people at a more theoretical how-to that helps with the
> > difficult "how do I spec this?" problems.
> >
> > Ashley
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From robert.feldt at bth.se  Thu Jul 12 15:26:17 2007
From: robert.feldt at bth.se (Robert Feldt)
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:26:17 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Promoting options to heckle?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707120912x1a7708feo68b4d187ba651785@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87a13e220707120549w532a74a3w9e1ff6dd2f816de8@mail.gmail.com>
	<87a13e220707120619o77a0f6b3o40dc0c423774fd9e@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707120912x1a7708feo68b4d187ba651785@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87a13e220707121226h55a316ffk8fabd84f0198b630@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/12/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/12/07, Robert Feldt <robert.feldt at bth.se> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying out RSpec with the heckle option (for mutation testing).
> >
> >
> > Problem is that heckle goes into an infinite loop when running it on an
> > example. I want to send a "--verbose" to heckle but can't find a way to
> do
> > that through the spec binary. Since this is not an uncommon situation
> when
> > using heckle I would like this to be supported in some way by RSpec.
> > Thoughts?


That sounds very reasonable. I like it.

Regards,

Robert

Hi Robert,
>
> I can see this working a couple of ways. We've got a -b switch which
> results in a complete backtrace showing up. That seems more or less
> synonymous with the notion of --verbose, which we don't have
> explicitly. So, what if we added a --verbose switch that affected any
> other options, like Heckle, or RCov? I think that would be simpler
> than trying to come up with targeted --verbose switches.
>
> WDYT?
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > /Robert Feldt
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>



-- 
Best regards,

/Robert Feldt
--
PhD, Assistant Professor in Software Engineering
Blekinge Institute of Technology
School of Engineering (APS)
SE-372 25 Ronneby
Sweden

Phone: +46 (0) 457 385 887
Mobile: +46 (0) 733 580 580

Web pages:
Research group: http://www.bth.se/tek/serl/
Research project: http://www.bth.se/besq/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070712/fd7187ee/attachment-0001.html 

From robert.feldt at bth.se  Fri Jul 13 02:10:21 2007
From: robert.feldt at bth.se (Robert Feldt)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:10:21 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Promoting options to heckle?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707120912x1a7708feo68b4d187ba651785@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87a13e220707120549w532a74a3w9e1ff6dd2f816de8@mail.gmail.com>
	<87a13e220707120619o77a0f6b3o40dc0c423774fd9e@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707120912x1a7708feo68b4d187ba651785@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87a13e220707122310q47c68665s90ef338fdf32474a@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/12/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/12/07, Robert Feldt <robert.feldt at bth.se> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying out RSpec with the heckle option (for mutation testing).
> >
> >
> > Problem is that heckle goes into an infinite loop when running it on an
> > example. I want to send a "--verbose" to heckle but can't find a way to
> do
> > that through the spec binary. Since this is not an uncommon situation
> when
> > using heckle I would like this to be supported in some way by RSpec.
> > Thoughts?


One alternative I thought of is to have a standard way to "promote" options
to other tools that spec invokes. Along the lines of:

spec --heckle --options-heckle "--verbose --branches
MyModule::MyClass#my_method" ...

and the argument to --options-heckle (or --options-rcov etc) would simply be
passed along in the call to heckle. This would cover more situations with a
single solution.

Regards,

Robert


Hi Robert,
>
> I can see this working a couple of ways. We've got a -b switch which
> results in a complete backtrace showing up. That seems more or less
> synonymous with the notion of --verbose, which we don't have
> explicitly. So, what if we added a --verbose switch that affected any
> other options, like Heckle, or RCov? I think that would be simpler
> than trying to come up with targeted --verbose switches.
>
> WDYT?
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > /Robert Feldt
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>



-- 
Best regards,

/Robert Feldt
--
PhD, Assistant Professor in Software Engineering
Blekinge Institute of Technology
School of Engineering (APS)
SE-372 25 Ronneby
Sweden

Phone: +46 (0) 457 385 887
Mobile: +46 (0) 733 580 580

Web pages:
Research group: http://www.bth.se/tek/serl/
Research project: http://www.bth.se/besq/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070713/b1c21c46/attachment.html 

From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Fri Jul 13 04:44:53 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:44:53 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] "they" synonym for "it"?
In-Reply-To: <619209E4-B843-4DFE-81CB-F050A39F26AA@digitalphenom.com>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>
	<57c63afe0707110629k2569f5dam8803550f624a88b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3D91945-9934-42E3-B295-DD28840B05C6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2e93189b0707110700n2c59ff1an2545544e3bd87ac8@mail.gmail.com>
	<38D81635-7A4B-44B4-B71A-56A86A1591C2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<AF6BBC7B-CCC3-414A-8BC9-98FB45A259D9@digitalphenom.com>
	<C4D12D24-D9AA-439E-95D1-E929D2F684E6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<619209E4-B843-4DFE-81CB-F050A39F26AA@digitalphenom.com>
Message-ID: <53072B4B-36B5-4482-BFD5-A96296E6AF2E@ashleymoran.me.uk>


On 12 Jul 2007, at 17:20, Anthony Carlos wrote:

> If you guys don't mind, I'm going to create a sample web page with
> this concept on it, stealing from Ashley and David's writings. If
> people like it, perhaps we can get it included in the documentation.

Do you have a wiki you could use?  If not I could open a public page  
on my company's wiki and you could edit it there - might be easier to  
do collaborative stuff that way.

Ashley



From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul 13 08:07:52 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 07:07:52 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] "they" synonym for "it"?
In-Reply-To: <53072B4B-36B5-4482-BFD5-A96296E6AF2E@ashleymoran.me.uk>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>
	<57c63afe0707110629k2569f5dam8803550f624a88b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3D91945-9934-42E3-B295-DD28840B05C6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2e93189b0707110700n2c59ff1an2545544e3bd87ac8@mail.gmail.com>
	<38D81635-7A4B-44B4-B71A-56A86A1591C2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<AF6BBC7B-CCC3-414A-8BC9-98FB45A259D9@digitalphenom.com>
	<C4D12D24-D9AA-439E-95D1-E929D2F684E6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<619209E4-B843-4DFE-81CB-F050A39F26AA@digitalphenom.com>
	<53072B4B-36B5-4482-BFD5-A96296E6AF2E@ashleymoran.me.uk>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707130507k389f882fh694b7a32fe075ff3@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/13/07, Ashley Moran <work at ashleymoran.me.uk> wrote:
>
> On 12 Jul 2007, at 17:20, Anthony Carlos wrote:
>
> > If you guys don't mind, I'm going to create a sample web page with
> > this concept on it, stealing from Ashley and David's writings. If
> > people like it, perhaps we can get it included in the documentation.
>
> Do you have a wiki you could use?  If not I could open a public page
> on my company's wiki and you could edit it there - might be easier to
> do collaborative stuff that way.

We don't right now, nor do we have resources to set one up, so if you
can set something up that would be awesome.

Thanks Ashley,
David

>
> Ashley
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Fri Jul 13 09:53:44 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:53:44 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] RSpec wiki
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707130507k389f882fh694b7a32fe075ff3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>
	<57c63afe0707110629k2569f5dam8803550f624a88b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3D91945-9934-42E3-B295-DD28840B05C6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2e93189b0707110700n2c59ff1an2545544e3bd87ac8@mail.gmail.com>
	<38D81635-7A4B-44B4-B71A-56A86A1591C2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<AF6BBC7B-CCC3-414A-8BC9-98FB45A259D9@digitalphenom.com>
	<C4D12D24-D9AA-439E-95D1-E929D2F684E6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<619209E4-B843-4DFE-81CB-F050A39F26AA@digitalphenom.com>
	<53072B4B-36B5-4482-BFD5-A96296E6AF2E@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<57c63afe0707130507k389f882fh694b7a32fe075ff3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D3FEA997-D048-4E3A-84EB-8CA0B1770560@ashleymoran.me.uk>


On 13 Jul 2007, at 13:07, David Chelimsky wrote:

> We don't right now, nor do we have resources to set one up, so if you
> can set something up that would be awesome.

Ok I cobbled something together on our company wiki (which runs on  
XWiki).  I've created an RSpecCollab space - a space is just a group  
of pages with common permissions - that is publicly viewable but only  
editable by registered users.  It's a bit quirky but the key stuff  
seems to work.  Please let me know if I inadvertently gave the whole  
world access to our corporate secrets :)

URL:  http://www.codeweavers.net/wiki/bin/view/RSpecCollab/WebHome

I've made a few accounts which I will send by email in a sec.  If  
anyone else wants an account just ask and I will set one up.

Ashley



From anthony at digitalphenom.com  Fri Jul 13 11:58:49 2007
From: anthony at digitalphenom.com (Anthony Carlos)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:58:49 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] RSpec wiki
In-Reply-To: <D3FEA997-D048-4E3A-84EB-8CA0B1770560@ashleymoran.me.uk>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>
	<57c63afe0707110629k2569f5dam8803550f624a88b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3D91945-9934-42E3-B295-DD28840B05C6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2e93189b0707110700n2c59ff1an2545544e3bd87ac8@mail.gmail.com>
	<38D81635-7A4B-44B4-B71A-56A86A1591C2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<AF6BBC7B-CCC3-414A-8BC9-98FB45A259D9@digitalphenom.com>
	<C4D12D24-D9AA-439E-95D1-E929D2F684E6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<619209E4-B843-4DFE-81CB-F050A39F26AA@digitalphenom.com>
	<53072B4B-36B5-4482-BFD5-A96296E6AF2E@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<57c63afe0707130507k389f882fh694b7a32fe075ff3@mail.gmail.com>
	<D3FEA997-D048-4E3A-84EB-8CA0B1770560@ashleymoran.me.uk>
Message-ID: <F243F322-96EE-4FEE-AA2C-7CE0B58FFEDA@digitalphenom.com>

Ashley:

Thanks for the wiki page. I've logged-in and posted a brief statement  
about our intentions. I'm playing the role of editor here, since, I'm  
not the best at writing examples, and I'm still feeling around for  
boundaries. I don't want to steal someone's writings without their  
consent, but I don't want to sprinkle people's names for each  
concept. Perhaps a thanks to each contributor in one section at the  
end will suffice?

Thanks,

-Anthony

On Jul 13, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Ashley Moran wrote:

>
> On 13 Jul 2007, at 13:07, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> We don't right now, nor do we have resources to set one up, so if you
>> can set something up that would be awesome.
>
> Ok I cobbled something together on our company wiki (which runs on
> XWiki).  I've created an RSpecCollab space - a space is just a group
> of pages with common permissions - that is publicly viewable but only
> editable by registered users.  It's a bit quirky but the key stuff
> seems to work.  Please let me know if I inadvertently gave the whole
> world access to our corporate secrets :)
>
> URL:  http://www.codeweavers.net/wiki/bin/view/RSpecCollab/WebHome
>
> I've made a few accounts which I will send by email in a sec.  If
> anyone else wants an account just ask and I will set one up.
>
> Ashley
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Fri Jul 13 12:13:52 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:13:52 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] RSpec wiki
In-Reply-To: <F243F322-96EE-4FEE-AA2C-7CE0B58FFEDA@digitalphenom.com>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>
	<57c63afe0707110629k2569f5dam8803550f624a88b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3D91945-9934-42E3-B295-DD28840B05C6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2e93189b0707110700n2c59ff1an2545544e3bd87ac8@mail.gmail.com>
	<38D81635-7A4B-44B4-B71A-56A86A1591C2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<AF6BBC7B-CCC3-414A-8BC9-98FB45A259D9@digitalphenom.com>
	<C4D12D24-D9AA-439E-95D1-E929D2F684E6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<619209E4-B843-4DFE-81CB-F050A39F26AA@digitalphenom.com>
	<53072B4B-36B5-4482-BFD5-A96296E6AF2E@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<57c63afe0707130507k389f882fh694b7a32fe075ff3@mail.gmail.com>
	<D3FEA997-D048-4E3A-84EB-8CA0B1770560@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<F243F322-96EE-4FEE-AA2C-7CE0B58FFEDA@digitalphenom.com>
Message-ID: <C9E2C3CB-2B8E-47FF-80DB-7E53A38FE9BF@ashleymoran.me.uk>


On 13 Jul 2007, at 16:58, Anthony Carlos wrote:

> Thanks for the wiki page. I've logged-in and posted a brief statement
> about our intentions. I'm playing the role of editor here, since, I'm
> not the best at writing examples, and I'm still feeling around for
> boundaries. I don't want to steal someone's writings without their
> consent, but I don't want to sprinkle people's names for each
> concept. Perhaps a thanks to each contributor in one section at the
> end will suffice?

I'm not too worried about my name being attached to a code sample  
that involves prodding cows with sticks :)

One thing you might want to try is splitting each example up into its  
own page.  You can make a list like this

1.1 Examples
* [GivenWhenThen]
* [SomethingElse]
* ...

then it creates links to pages that are created when  you save some  
content

(Headings are made with 1, 1.1, 1.1.1 etc)

You've used some square brackets to put comments in - they need a \  
in front of them to prevent them being treated as links

I might write a couple of examples based on on shared specs /  
decomposing classes problems that have come up at work.  If I get  
change I'll write them up soon so they can be reviewed

Ashley





From anthony at digitalphenom.com  Fri Jul 13 12:49:31 2007
From: anthony at digitalphenom.com (Anthony Carlos)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:49:31 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] RSpec wiki
In-Reply-To: <C9E2C3CB-2B8E-47FF-80DB-7E53A38FE9BF@ashleymoran.me.uk>
References: <D8192BE4-50F6-47B1-9C2B-A2BD553FDA90@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<7F9A8274-3318-4D86-93F6-DD826289ADA3@wincent.com>
	<57c63afe0707110629k2569f5dam8803550f624a88b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3D91945-9934-42E3-B295-DD28840B05C6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2e93189b0707110700n2c59ff1an2545544e3bd87ac8@mail.gmail.com>
	<38D81635-7A4B-44B4-B71A-56A86A1591C2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<AF6BBC7B-CCC3-414A-8BC9-98FB45A259D9@digitalphenom.com>
	<C4D12D24-D9AA-439E-95D1-E929D2F684E6@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<619209E4-B843-4DFE-81CB-F050A39F26AA@digitalphenom.com>
	<53072B4B-36B5-4482-BFD5-A96296E6AF2E@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<57c63afe0707130507k389f882fh694b7a32fe075ff3@mail.gmail.com>
	<D3FEA997-D048-4E3A-84EB-8CA0B1770560@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<F243F322-96EE-4FEE-AA2C-7CE0B58FFEDA@digitalphenom.com>
	<C9E2C3CB-2B8E-47FF-80DB-7E53A38FE9BF@ashleymoran.me.uk>
Message-ID: <297431E3-C05B-4FF5-A99E-4AB7312AF472@digitalphenom.com>

Thanks for the primer on the wiki. I don't use them very often, but  
I'll pick up the formatting stuff soon enough. I will try to set-up  
additional pages later today.

Thanks,

-Anthony

On Jul 13, 2007, at 12:13 PM, Ashley Moran wrote:

>
> On 13 Jul 2007, at 16:58, Anthony Carlos wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the wiki page. I've logged-in and posted a brief statement
>> about our intentions. I'm playing the role of editor here, since, I'm
>> not the best at writing examples, and I'm still feeling around for
>> boundaries. I don't want to steal someone's writings without their
>> consent, but I don't want to sprinkle people's names for each
>> concept. Perhaps a thanks to each contributor in one section at the
>> end will suffice?
>
> I'm not too worried about my name being attached to a code sample
> that involves prodding cows with sticks :)
>
> One thing you might want to try is splitting each example up into its
> own page.  You can make a list like this
>
> 1.1 Examples
> * [GivenWhenThen]
> * [SomethingElse]
> * ...
>
> then it creates links to pages that are created when  you save some
> content
>
> (Headings are made with 1, 1.1, 1.1.1 etc)
>
> You've used some square brackets to put comments in - they need a \
> in front of them to prevent them being treated as links
>
> I might write a couple of examples based on on shared specs /
> decomposing classes problems that have come up at work.  If I get
> change I'll write them up soon so they can be reviewed
>
> Ashley
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From Gregory.Murphy at Sun.COM  Fri Jul 13 15:13:03 2007
From: Gregory.Murphy at Sun.COM (Gregory Murphy)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:13:03 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] spec for Rails library
Message-ID: <4697CEBF.1040400@sun.com>

How does one write a spec for a Rails library?

// Gregory

From aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com  Fri Jul 13 15:24:52 2007
From: aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com (aslak hellesoy)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:24:52 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] spec for Rails library
In-Reply-To: <4697CEBF.1040400@sun.com>
References: <4697CEBF.1040400@sun.com>
Message-ID: <8d961d900707131224r1c4ce1f6ud2c43c4c11100645@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/13/07, Gregory Murphy <Gregory.Murphy at sun.com> wrote:
> How does one write a spec for a Rails library?
>

Umm, just like you would for any other Ruby library. Can you be more specific?

Aslak

> // Gregory
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From Gregory.Murphy at Sun.COM  Fri Jul 13 15:31:05 2007
From: Gregory.Murphy at Sun.COM (Gregory Murphy)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:31:05 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] spec for Rails library
In-Reply-To: <8d961d900707131224r1c4ce1f6ud2c43c4c11100645@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4697CEBF.1040400@sun.com>
	<8d961d900707131224r1c4ce1f6ud2c43c4c11100645@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4697D2F9.2070804@sun.com>

aslak hellesoy wrote:
> On 7/13/07, Gregory Murphy <Gregory.Murphy at sun.com> wrote:
>> How does one write a spec for a Rails library?
>>
>
> Umm, just like you would for any other Ruby library. Can you be more 
> specific?

Sorry, I'm referring in particular to RSpec for Rails. It generates a 
number of directories in a Rails app, with a place for model specs, for 
example, and a rake task to run them, e.g. 'rake spec:models'. But there 
is no place and no task for library tests.

// Gregory

From tom at experthuman.com  Fri Jul 13 17:12:06 2007
From: tom at experthuman.com (Tom Stuart)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:12:06 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] spec for Rails library
In-Reply-To: <4697D2F9.2070804@sun.com>
References: <4697CEBF.1040400@sun.com>
	<8d961d900707131224r1c4ce1f6ud2c43c4c11100645@mail.gmail.com>
	<4697D2F9.2070804@sun.com>
Message-ID: <3C19569D-370B-482D-920F-70CCCC329BB4@experthuman.com>

On 13 Jul 2007, at 20:31, Gregory Murphy wrote:
> I'm referring in particular to RSpec for Rails. It generates a
> number of directories in a Rails app, with a place for model specs,  
> for
> example, and a rake task to run them, e.g. 'rake spec:models'. But  
> there
> is no place and no task for library tests.

Put them wherever you want -- most people seem to use spec/lib (cf  
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/2007-June/002069.html).  
They'll get run by "rake spec" along with everything else; add :libs  
to the "[:models, :controllers, :views, :helpers].each" line in  
vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails/tasks/rspec.rake if you want to be able  
to say "rake spec:libs".

Cheers,
-Tom

From aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com  Fri Jul 13 17:45:02 2007
From: aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com (aslak hellesoy)
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:45:02 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] spec for Rails library
In-Reply-To: <3C19569D-370B-482D-920F-70CCCC329BB4@experthuman.com>
References: <4697CEBF.1040400@sun.com>
	<8d961d900707131224r1c4ce1f6ud2c43c4c11100645@mail.gmail.com>
	<4697D2F9.2070804@sun.com>
	<3C19569D-370B-482D-920F-70CCCC329BB4@experthuman.com>
Message-ID: <8d961d900707131445n2f0d115dodbf4e015ebd54d6c@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/13/07, Tom Stuart <tom at experthuman.com> wrote:
> On 13 Jul 2007, at 20:31, Gregory Murphy wrote:
> > I'm referring in particular to RSpec for Rails. It generates a
> > number of directories in a Rails app, with a place for model specs,
> > for
> > example, and a rake task to run them, e.g. 'rake spec:models'. But
> > there
> > is no place and no task for library tests.
>
> Put them wherever you want -- most people seem to use spec/lib (cf
> http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/2007-June/002069.html).
> They'll get run by "rake spec" along with everything else; add :libs
> to the "[:models, :controllers, :views, :helpers].each" line in
> vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails/tasks/rspec.rake if you want to be able
> to say "rake spec:libs".
>

Hey! That's not for users to do!

I've added it to rspec.rake ;-)

Aslak

> Cheers,
> -Tom
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From jed.hurt at gmail.com  Sat Jul 14 03:31:42 2007
From: jed.hurt at gmail.com (Jed Hurt)
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 01:31:42 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] expect_render twice in views
Message-ID: <dbc32d450707140031k5deb9ddaw4bb30738f2c57a8c@mail.gmail.com>

I found this:

controller.expect_render(:partial => 'thing', :collection => things).once

but I am trying to expect_render twice in my view spec:

template.expect_render(:partial => 'order_details').twice


This doesn't work as the template.expect_render call seems to be
returning an array. Is it possible to expect the rendering of a
partial twice in a view spec?

From aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com  Sat Jul 14 04:57:14 2007
From: aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com (aslak hellesoy)
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:57:14 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] expect_render twice in views
In-Reply-To: <dbc32d450707140031k5deb9ddaw4bb30738f2c57a8c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <dbc32d450707140031k5deb9ddaw4bb30738f2c57a8c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8d961d900707140157g41fa9270ufdf47a975d6232a7@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/14/07, Jed Hurt <jed.hurt at gmail.com> wrote:
> I found this:
>
> controller.expect_render(:partial => 'thing', :collection => things).once
>
> but I am trying to expect_render twice in my view spec:
>
> template.expect_render(:partial => 'order_details').twice
>
>
> This doesn't work as the template.expect_render call seems to be
> returning an array. Is it possible to expect the rendering of a
> partial twice in a view spec?

Currently not (AFAICT). Could you submit an RFE, or better - a patch?

Aslak

> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sat Jul 14 10:13:14 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 09:13:14 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] expect_render twice in views
In-Reply-To: <8d961d900707140157g41fa9270ufdf47a975d6232a7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <dbc32d450707140031k5deb9ddaw4bb30738f2c57a8c@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d961d900707140157g41fa9270ufdf47a975d6232a7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707140713p18aff7b0k7c51876464bc90e8@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/14/07, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/14/07, Jed Hurt <jed.hurt at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I found this:
> >
> > controller.expect_render(:partial => 'thing', :collection => things).once
> >
> > but I am trying to expect_render twice in my view spec:
> >
> > template.expect_render(:partial => 'order_details').twice
> >
> >
> > This doesn't work as the template.expect_render call seems to be
> > returning an array. Is it possible to expect the rendering of a
> > partial twice in a view spec?
>
> Currently not (AFAICT). Could you submit an RFE, or better - a patch?

Given that I this hasn't been released yet and we want to a release
soon, I broke form and just fixed this in trunk r2174.

Cheers,
David

>
> Aslak
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From has.sox at gmail.com  Sat Jul 14 11:43:45 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 01:43:45 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Specing Layouts
Message-ID: <2fff50390707140843w8e2630evc805db93c614c955@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I've just started to try and spec my application.html.erb layout as one of
the view specs but it totally barfs.

I'm guessing that it's due to the yield statements in the layout.

Any clues as to how to proceed?

Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070715/09c30332/attachment.html 

From jed.hurt at gmail.com  Sat Jul 14 12:45:21 2007
From: jed.hurt at gmail.com (Jed Hurt)
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:45:21 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] expect_render twice in views
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707140713p18aff7b0k7c51876464bc90e8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <dbc32d450707140031k5deb9ddaw4bb30738f2c57a8c@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d961d900707140157g41fa9270ufdf47a975d6232a7@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707140713p18aff7b0k7c51876464bc90e8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dbc32d450707140945r99c7604o5ce87fed7ff4c93c@mail.gmail.com>

Works like a charm. Thanks!

On 7/14/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/14/07, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/14/07, Jed Hurt <jed.hurt at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I found this:
> > >
> > > controller.expect_render(:partial => 'thing', :collection => things).once
> > >
> > > but I am trying to expect_render twice in my view spec:
> > >
> > > template.expect_render(:partial => 'order_details').twice
> > >
> > >
> > > This doesn't work as the template.expect_render call seems to be
> > > returning an array. Is it possible to expect the rendering of a
> > > partial twice in a view spec?
> >
> > Currently not (AFAICT). Could you submit an RFE, or better - a patch?
>
> Given that I this hasn't been released yet and we want to a release
> soon, I broke form and just fixed this in trunk r2174.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> >
> > Aslak
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sat Jul 14 12:50:48 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:50:48 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Specing Layouts
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707140843w8e2630evc805db93c614c955@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707140843w8e2630evc805db93c614c955@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707140950k2b347d7g2847dc1f62660b92@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/14/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just started to try and spec my application.html.erb layout as one of
> the view specs but it totally barfs.
>
> I'm guessing that it's due to the yield statements in the layout.
>
> Any clues as to how to proceed?

Backtrace please? Could be any number of things.

>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From has.sox at gmail.com  Sat Jul 14 23:25:35 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:25:35 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Specing Layouts
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707140950k2b347d7g2847dc1f62660b92@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707140843w8e2630evc805db93c614c955@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707140950k2b347d7g2847dc1f62660b92@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707142025x28e39032j40ca2626c7ec210d@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/15/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/14/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've just started to try and spec my application.html.erb layout as one
> of
> > the view specs but it totally barfs.
> >
> > I'm guessing that it's due to the yield statements in the layout.
> >
> > Any clues as to how to proceed?
>
> Backtrace please? Could be any number of things.
>
> >


Sorry,  here it is

......rake aborted!
Command ruby
-I"/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib"
"/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/bin/spec"
"spec/controllers/books_controller_spec.rb"
"spec/controllers/sessions_controller_spec.rb"
"spec/controllers/users_controller_spec.rb"
"spec/helpers/books_helper_spec.rb" "spec/helpers/sessions_helper_spec.rb"
"spec/helpers/users_helper_spec.rb" "spec/models/book_spec.rb"
"spec/models/user_notifier_spec.rb" "spec/models/user_spec.rb"
"spec/views/books/_detail.html.erb_spec.rb"
"spec/views/books/edit.html.erb_spec.rb"
"spec/views/books/index.html.erb_spec.rb"
"spec/views/books/new.html.erb_spec.rb"
"spec/views/books/new_rjs.html.erb_spec.rb"
"spec/views/books/rjs_index.html.erb_spec.rb"
"spec/views/books/show.html.erb_spec.rb"
"spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb" --options
"/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/spec/spec.opts"
failed
/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/rake/spectask.rb:166:in
`define'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:823:in `verbose'
/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/rake/spectask.rb:138:in
`define'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in `call'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in `execute'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in `each'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in `execute'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:362:in `invoke'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:355:in
`synchronize'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:355:in `invoke'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in `top_level'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in `each'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in `top_level'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1761:in
`standard_exception_handling'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1733:in `top_level'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1711:in `run'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1761:in
`standard_exception_handling'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1708:in `run'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/bin/rake:7
/usr/local/bin/rake:16:in `load'
/usr/local/bin/rake:16

And the test is

require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../../spec_helper'

describe "/layouts/application.html.erb" do

  it "should render" do
    render "/layouts/application.html.erb"
  end


end

Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070715/5d59648f/attachment-0001.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sun Jul 15 08:58:33 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 07:58:33 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Specing Layouts
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707142025x28e39032j40ca2626c7ec210d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707140843w8e2630evc805db93c614c955@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707140950k2b347d7g2847dc1f62660b92@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707142025x28e39032j40ca2626c7ec210d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707150558k448bf3c3mf24b40a3cd67a103@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/14/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/15/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/14/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've just started to try and spec my application.html.erb layout as one
> of
> > > the view specs but it totally barfs.
> > >
> > > I'm guessing that it's due to the yield statements in the layout.
> > >
> > > Any clues as to how to proceed?
> >
> > Backtrace please? Could be any number of things.
> >
> > >
>
> Sorry,  here it is
>
> ......rake aborted!
> Command ruby
> -I"/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib"
> "/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/bin/spec"
> "spec/controllers/books_controller_spec.rb"
> "spec/controllers/sessions_controller_spec.rb"
> "spec/controllers/users_controller_spec.rb"
> "spec/helpers/books_helper_spec.rb"
> "spec/helpers/sessions_helper_spec.rb"
> "spec/helpers/users_helper_spec.rb"
> "spec/models/book_spec.rb"
> "spec/models/user_notifier_spec.rb"
> "spec/models/user_spec.rb"
> "spec/views/books/_detail.html.erb_spec.rb"
> "spec/views/books/edit.html.erb_spec.rb"
> "spec/views/books/index.html.erb_spec.rb"
> "spec/views/books/new.html.erb_spec.rb"
> "spec/views/books/new_rjs.html.erb_spec.rb"
> "spec/views/books/rjs_index.html.erb_spec.rb"
> "spec/views/books/show.html.erb_spec.rb"
> "spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb" --options
> "/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/spec/spec.opts"
> failed
> /Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/rake/spectask.rb:166:in
> `define'
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:823:in
> `verbose'
> /Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/rake/spectask.rb:138:in
> `define'
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> `call'
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> `execute'
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> `each'
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> `execute'
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:362:in
> `invoke'
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:355:in
> `synchronize'
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:355:in
> `invoke'
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in
> `top_level'
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in
> `each'
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in
> `top_level'
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1761:in
> `standard_exception_handling'
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1733:in
> `top_level'
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-
> 0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1711:in `run'
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1761:in
> `standard_exception_handling'
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1708:in
> `run'
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake- 0.7.3/bin/rake:7
> /usr/local/bin/rake:16:in `load'
> /usr/local/bin/rake:16
>
> And the test is
>
> require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../../spec_helper'
>
> describe "/layouts/application.html.erb" do
>
>   it "should render" do
>     render "/layouts/application.html.erb"
>   end
>
>
> end

Thanks. Unfortunately there's nothing in that backtrace that talks
about application.html.erb. Would you please run this command and post
the result?

script/spec spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb -b

Thanks,
David

>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From has.sox at gmail.com  Sun Jul 15 10:08:00 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:08:00 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Specing Layouts
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707150558k448bf3c3mf24b40a3cd67a103@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707140843w8e2630evc805db93c614c955@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707140950k2b347d7g2847dc1f62660b92@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707142025x28e39032j40ca2626c7ec210d@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707150558k448bf3c3mf24b40a3cd67a103@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707150707x706865acy681c97d9b069d614@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/15/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/14/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 7/15/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/14/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I've just started to try and spec my application.html.erb layout as
> one
> > of
> > > > the view specs but it totally barfs.
> > > >
> > > > I'm guessing that it's due to the yield statements in the layout.
> > > >
> > > > Any clues as to how to proceed?
> > >
> > > Backtrace please? Could be any number of things.
> > >
> > > >
> >
> > Sorry,  here it is
> >
> > ......rake aborted!
> > Command ruby
> >
> -I"/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib"
> >
> "/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/bin/spec"
> > "spec/controllers/books_controller_spec.rb"
> > "spec/controllers/sessions_controller_spec.rb"
> > "spec/controllers/users_controller_spec.rb"
> > "spec/helpers/books_helper_spec.rb"
> > "spec/helpers/sessions_helper_spec.rb"
> > "spec/helpers/users_helper_spec.rb"
> > "spec/models/book_spec.rb"
> > "spec/models/user_notifier_spec.rb"
> > "spec/models/user_spec.rb"
> > "spec/views/books/_detail.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > "spec/views/books/edit.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > "spec/views/books/index.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > "spec/views/books/new.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > "spec/views/books/new_rjs.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > "spec/views/books/rjs_index.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > "spec/views/books/show.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > "spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb" --options
> >
> "/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/spec/spec.opts"
> > failed
> >
> /Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/rake/spectask.rb:166:in
> > `define'
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:823:in
> > `verbose'
> >
> /Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/rake/spectask.rb:138:in
> > `define'
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > `call'
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > `execute'
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > `each'
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > `execute'
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:362:in
> > `invoke'
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:355:in
> > `synchronize'
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:355:in
> > `invoke'
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in
> > `top_level'
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in
> > `each'
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in
> > `top_level'
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1761:in
> > `standard_exception_handling'
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1733:in
> > `top_level'
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-
> > 0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1711:in `run'
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1761:in
> > `standard_exception_handling'
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1708:in
> > `run'
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake- 0.7.3/bin/rake:7
> > /usr/local/bin/rake:16:in `load'
> > /usr/local/bin/rake:16
> >
> > And the test is
> >
> > require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../../spec_helper'
> >
> > describe "/layouts/application.html.erb" do
> >
> >   it "should render" do
> >     render "/layouts/application.html.erb"
> >   end
> >
> >
> > end
>
> Thanks. Unfortunately there's nothing in that backtrace that talks
> about application.html.erb. Would you please run this command and post
> the result?
>
> script/spec spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb -b
>
> Thanks,
> David


Hi David,

Very strange indeed.  I had to change the command to
script/spec spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb -b

When I run this I get no errors at all.  But I also get no output at all.

When I run the focused example in Textmate it passes but there is no listing
of the example in the output.  This is the same as running the  Behaviour
Description

It also does not seem to fail anything.  I ran the following

  def do_render
>     render "/layouts/application.html.erb"
>   end
>
>   it "should render the template" do
>     do_render
>     response.should have_tag("not_there_tag")
>     flunk
>   end


This seems to pass everything.  But when I run it with
rake spec I get the same error as before

In an attempt to see if it is running the template at all I put a dodgy
method call in the template to try to crash it.  It crashes.

Here's the stack trace

ActionView::TemplateError in '/layouts/application.html.erb should render
the template'
undefined local variable or method `bad_method' for
#<#<Class:0x3344718>:0x33446f0>
On line #14 of app/views/layouts/application.html.erb

    11:         <%= javascript_include_tag :defaults, 'lowpro' -%>
    12:         <%= stylesheet_link_tag 'common' -%>
    13:         <%= resource_on_demand %>
    14:         <%= bad_method %>
    15:
    16: </head>
    17:

    #{RAILS_ROOT}/app/views//layouts/application.html.erb:14:in
`_run_erb_47app47views47layouts47application46html46erb'
    /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_view/base.rb:346:in
`send'
    /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_view/base.rb:346:in
`compile_and_render_template'
    /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_view/base.rb:322:in
`render_template_old'
    #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/stable/lib/haml/template.rb:96:in
`render_template'
    /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_view/base.rb:282:in
`render_file'
    /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/base.rb:854:in
`render_file'
    /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/base.rb:789:in
`render_with_no_layout'
    /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/layout.rb:258:in
`render_without_benchmark'
    /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb:51:in
`render'
    /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:293:in `measure'
    /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb:51:in
`render'

#{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/view.rb:55:in
`send'

#{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/view.rb:55:in
`render'
    spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb:6:in `do_render'
    spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb:10
    #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:81:in
`instance_eval'
    #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:81:in
`run_example'
    #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:26:in `run'
    /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/timeout.rb:48:in `timeout'
    #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:24:in `run'
    #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour.rb:80:in `run'
    #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour.rb:74:in
`each'
    #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour.rb:74:in `run'

#{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:58:in
`run_behaviours'

#{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:57:in
`each'

#{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:57:in
`run_behaviours'

#{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:21:in
`run'
    #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/command_line.rb:17:in
`run'
    script/spec:4

I've changed to a haml template, and used the same spec but with a different
file (.haml) to render and it ran fine.  Passes everything with complete
listings etc.

I really don't know what to make of it.

Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070716/cd6d8130/attachment.html 

From has.sox at gmail.com  Sun Jul 15 10:35:16 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:35:16 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Specing Layouts
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707150707x706865acy681c97d9b069d614@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707140843w8e2630evc805db93c614c955@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707140950k2b347d7g2847dc1f62660b92@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707142025x28e39032j40ca2626c7ec210d@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707150558k448bf3c3mf24b40a3cd67a103@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707150707x706865acy681c97d9b069d614@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707150735t16867e62hdb7612c4643bd8ac@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/16/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/15/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/14/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/15/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 7/14/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've just started to try and spec my application.html.erb layout
> > as one
> > > of
> > > > > the view specs but it totally barfs.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm guessing that it's due to the yield statements in the layout.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any clues as to how to proceed?
> > > >
> > > > Backtrace please? Could be any number of things.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry,  here it is
> > >
> > > ......rake aborted!
> > > Command ruby
> > >
> > -I"/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib"
> >
> > >
> > "/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/bin/spec"
> > > "spec/controllers/books_controller_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/controllers/sessions_controller_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/controllers/users_controller_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/helpers/books_helper_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/helpers/sessions_helper_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/helpers/users_helper_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/models/book_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/models/user_notifier_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/models/user_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/views/books/_detail.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/views/books/edit.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/views/books/index.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/views/books/new.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/views/books/new_rjs.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/views/books/rjs_index.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/views/books/show.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb" --options
> > >
> > "/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/spec/spec.opts"
> >
> > > failed
> > >
> > /Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/rake/spectask.rb:166:in
> > > `define'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3 /lib/rake.rb:823:in
> > > `verbose'
> > >
> > /Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/rake/spectask.rb:138:in
> > > `define'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake- 0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > > `call'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > > `execute'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > > `each'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > > `execute'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:362:in
> > > `invoke'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake- 0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:355:in
> > > `synchronize'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:355:in
> > > `invoke'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in
> > > `top_level'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in
> > > `each'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in
> > > `top_level'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake- 0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1761:in
> > > `standard_exception_handling'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1733:in
> > > `top_level'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-
> > > 0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1711:in `run'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1761:in
> > > `standard_exception_handling'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1708:in
> > > `run'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake- 0.7.3/bin/rake:7
> > > /usr/local/bin/rake:16:in `load'
> > > /usr/local/bin/rake:16
> > >
> > > And the test is
> > >
> > > require File.dirname (__FILE__) + '/../../spec_helper'
> > >
> > > describe "/layouts/application.html.erb" do
> > >
> > >   it "should render" do
> > >     render "/layouts/application.html.erb"
> > >   end
> > >
> > >
> > > end
> >
> > Thanks. Unfortunately there's nothing in that backtrace that talks
> > about application.html.erb. Would you please run this command and post
> > the result?
> >
> > script/spec spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb -b
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
>
>
> Hi David,
>
> Very strange indeed.  I had to change the command to
> script/spec spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb -b
>
> When I run this I get no errors at all.  But I also get no output at all.
>
> When I run the focused example in Textmate it passes but there is no
> listing of the example in the output.  This is the same as running the
> Behaviour Description
>
> It also does not seem to fail anything.  I ran the following
>
>   def do_render
> >     render "/layouts/application.html.erb"
> >   end
> >
> >   it "should render the template" do
> >     do_render
> >     response.should have_tag("not_there_tag")
> >     flunk
> >   end
>
>
> This seems to pass everything.  But when I run it with
> rake spec I get the same error as before
>
> In an attempt to see if it is running the template at all I put a dodgy
> method call in the template to try to crash it.  It crashes.
>
> Here's the stack trace
>
> ActionView::TemplateError in '/layouts/application.html.erb should render
> the template'
> undefined local variable or method `bad_method' for
> #<#<Class:0x3344718>:0x33446f0>
> On line #14 of app/views/layouts/application.html.erb
>
>     11:         <%= javascript_include_tag :defaults, 'lowpro' -%>
>     12:         <%= stylesheet_link_tag 'common' -%>
>     13:         <%= resource_on_demand %>
>     14:         <%= bad_method %>
>     15:
>     16: </head>
>     17:
>
>     #{RAILS_ROOT}/app/views//layouts/application.html.erb:14:in
> `_run_erb_47app47views47layouts47application46html46erb'
>     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack- 1.13.3.6752/lib/action_view/base.rb:346:in
> `send'
>     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_view/base.rb:346:in
> `compile_and_render_template'
>     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack- 1.13.3.6752/lib/action_view/base.rb:322:in
> `render_template_old'
>     #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/stable/lib/haml/template.rb:96:in
> `render_template'
>     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_view/base.rb:282:in `render_file'
>     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/base.rb:854:in
> `render_file'
>     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack- 1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/base.rb:789:in
> `render_with_no_layout'
>     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/layout.rb:258:in
> `render_without_benchmark'
>     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack- 1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb:51:in
> `render'
>     /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:293:in `measure'
>     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb:51:in
> `render'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/view.rb:55:in
> `send'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/view.rb:55:in
> `render'
>     spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb:6:in `do_render'
>     spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb:10
>     #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:81:in
> `instance_eval'
>     #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:81:in
> `run_example'
>     #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:26:in `run'
>     /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/timeout.rb:48:in `timeout'
>     #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:24:in `run'
>
>     #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour.rb:80:in
> `run'
>     #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour.rb:74:in
> `each'
>     #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour.rb:74:in
> `run'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:58:in
> `run_behaviours'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:57:in
> `each'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:57:in
> `run_behaviours'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:21:in
> `run'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/command_line.rb:17:in
> `run'
>     script/spec:4
>
> I've changed to a haml template, and used the same spec but with a
> different file (.haml) to render and it ran fine.  Passes everything with
> complete listings etc.
>
> I really don't know what to make of it.
>
> Cheers
> Daniel



David,

Thankyou for being so patient.  I've discovered the issue.  I'm basically
re-writing my app as I port it over to specs from a nasty mix of units and
various plugins.

During the move I've started to test the application layout where it tries
to render a parital that I haven't got yet.

Once I take the render :partial call out for the non existing partial,
everything went back to normal.

I hope I haven't wasted too much of your time.  I'm really sorry.

Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070716/6c8a7751/attachment-0001.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sun Jul 15 10:35:33 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 09:35:33 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Specing Layouts
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707150707x706865acy681c97d9b069d614@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707140843w8e2630evc805db93c614c955@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707140950k2b347d7g2847dc1f62660b92@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707142025x28e39032j40ca2626c7ec210d@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707150558k448bf3c3mf24b40a3cd67a103@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707150707x706865acy681c97d9b069d614@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707150735l441a6a7dle5480c697c0ece69@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/15/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/15/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/14/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/15/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 7/14/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've just started to try and spec my application.html.erb layout as
> one
> > > of
> > > > > the view specs but it totally barfs.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm guessing that it's due to the yield statements in the layout.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any clues as to how to proceed?
> > > >
> > > > Backtrace please? Could be any number of things.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry,  here it is
> > >
> > > ......rake aborted!
> > > Command ruby
> > >
> -I"/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib"
> > >
> "/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/bin/spec"
> > > "spec/controllers/books_controller_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/controllers/sessions_controller_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/controllers/users_controller_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/helpers/books_helper_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/helpers/sessions_helper_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/helpers/users_helper_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/models/book_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/models/user_notifier_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/models/user_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/views/books/_detail.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/views/books/edit.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/views/books/index.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/views/books/new.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/views/books/new_rjs.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/views/books/rjs_index.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/views/books/show.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > "spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb"
> --options
> > >
> "/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/spec/spec.opts"
> > > failed
> > >
> /Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/rake/spectask.rb:166:in
> > > `define'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3
> /lib/rake.rb:823:in
> > > `verbose'
> > >
> /Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/rake/spectask.rb:138:in
> > > `define'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-
> 0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > > `call'
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > > `execute'
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > > `each'
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > > `execute'
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:362:in
> > > `invoke'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-
> 0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:355:in
> > > `synchronize'
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:355:in
> > > `invoke'
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in
> > > `top_level'
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in
> > > `each'
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in
> > > `top_level'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-
> 0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1761:in
> > > `standard_exception_handling'
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1733:in
> > > `top_level'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-
> > > 0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1711:in `run'
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1761:in
> > > `standard_exception_handling'
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1708:in
> > > `run'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-
> 0.7.3/bin/rake:7
> > > /usr/local/bin/rake:16:in `load'
> > > /usr/local/bin/rake:16
> > >
> > > And the test is
> > >
> > > require File.dirname (__FILE__) + '/../../spec_helper'
> > >
> > > describe "/layouts/application.html.erb" do
> > >
> > >   it "should render" do
> > >     render "/layouts/application.html.erb"
> > >   end
> > >
> > >
> > > end
> >
> > Thanks. Unfortunately there's nothing in that backtrace that talks
> > about application.html.erb. Would you please run this command and post
> > the result?
> >
> > script/spec spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb -b
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
>
> Hi David,
>
> Very strange indeed.  I had to change the command to
> script/spec spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb
> -b
>
> When I run this I get no errors at all.  But I also get no output at all.
>
> When I run the focused example in Textmate it passes but there is no listing
> of the example in the output.  This is the same as running the  Behaviour
> Description
>
> It also does not seem to fail anything.  I ran the following
>
> >   def do_render
> >     render "/layouts/application.html.erb"
> >   end
> >
> >   it "should render the template" do
> >     do_render
> >     response.should have_tag("not_there_tag")
> >     flunk
> >   end
>
> This seems to pass everything.  But when I run it with
> rake spec I get the same error as before
>
> In an attempt to see if it is running the template at all I put a dodgy
> method call in the template to try to crash it.  It crashes.
>
> Here's the stack trace
>
> ActionView::TemplateError in '/layouts/application.html.erb should render
> the template'
> undefined local variable or method `bad_method' for
> #<#<Class:0x3344718>:0x33446f0>
> On line #14 of app/views/layouts/application.html.erb
>
>     11:         <%= javascript_include_tag :defaults, 'lowpro' -%>
>     12:         <%= stylesheet_link_tag 'common' -%>
>     13:         <%= resource_on_demand %>
>     14:         <%= bad_method %>
>     15:
>     16: </head>
>     17:
>
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/app/views//layouts/application.html.erb:14:in
> `_run_erb_47app47views47layouts47application46html46erb'
>     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-
> 1.13.3.6752/lib/action_view/base.rb:346:in `send'
>
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_view/base.rb:346:in
> `compile_and_render_template'
>     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-
> 1.13.3.6752/lib/action_view/base.rb:322:in `render_template_old'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/stable/lib/haml/template.rb:96:in
> `render_template'
>
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752
> /lib/action_view/base.rb:282:in `render_file'
>
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/base.rb:854:in
> `render_file'
>     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-
> 1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/base.rb:789:in
> `render_with_no_layout'
>
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/layout.rb:258:in
> `render_without_benchmark'
>     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-
> 1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb:51:in
> `render'
>     /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:293:in `measure'
>
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb:51:in
> `render'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/view.rb:55:in
> `send'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/view.rb:55:in
> `render'
>     spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb:6:in
> `do_render'
>     spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb:10
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:81:in
> `instance_eval'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:81:in
> `run_example'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:26:in
> `run'
>     /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/timeout.rb:48:in `timeout'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:24:in
> `run'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour.rb:80:in
> `run'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour.rb:74:in
> `each'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour.rb:74:in
> `run'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:58:in
> `run_behaviours'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:57:in
> `each'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:57:in
> `run_behaviours'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:21:in
> `run'
>
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/command_line.rb:17:in
> `run'
>     script/spec:4
>
> I've changed to a haml template, and used the same spec but with a different
> file (.haml) to render and it ran fine.  Passes everything with complete
> listings etc.
>
> I really don't know what to make of it.

Me neither. I don't have any trouble like what you've described, and I
do have application.html.erb described in my apps.

As for .haml, I haven't tried using .haml and rspec_on_rails does not
support .haml at this point, nor is there any plan to do so. Not that
we've chosen not to, just that it hasn't come up as a feature request.
Although, if it does, it won't likely get implemented until either
Aslak or I decide to start using haml on our own projects or someone
on this list submits a patch.

Haml aside, I'm clueless. If you want to send me a zip file (you can
send it off list) of the whole project, I'd be glad to try and start
it up and see what I can find.

Meanwhile, if anyone else is having a similar experience, please speak up.

Thanks,
David

>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sun Jul 15 10:36:40 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 09:36:40 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Specing Layouts
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707150735t16867e62hdb7612c4643bd8ac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707140843w8e2630evc805db93c614c955@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707140950k2b347d7g2847dc1f62660b92@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707142025x28e39032j40ca2626c7ec210d@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707150558k448bf3c3mf24b40a3cd67a103@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707150707x706865acy681c97d9b069d614@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707150735t16867e62hdb7612c4643bd8ac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707150736p10f172b8n345d2b6c0e3003eb@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/15/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/16/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/15/07, David Chelimsky < dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/14/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 7/15/07, David Chelimsky < dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 7/14/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've just started to try and spec my application.html.erb layout
> as one
> > > > of
> > > > > > the view specs but it totally barfs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm guessing that it's due to the yield statements in the layout.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any clues as to how to proceed?
> > > > >
> > > > > Backtrace please? Could be any number of things.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry,  here it is
> > > >
> > > > ......rake aborted!
> > > > Command ruby
> > > >
> -I"/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib"
> > > >
> "/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/bin/spec"
> > > > "spec/controllers/books_controller_spec.rb"
> > > > "spec/controllers/sessions_controller_spec.rb"
> > > > "spec/controllers/users_controller_spec.rb"
> > > > "spec/helpers/books_helper_spec.rb"
> > > > "spec/helpers/sessions_helper_spec.rb"
> > > > "spec/helpers/users_helper_spec.rb"
> > > > "spec/models/book_spec.rb"
> > > > "spec/models/user_notifier_spec.rb"
> > > > "spec/models/user_spec.rb"
> > > > "spec/views/books/_detail.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > > "spec/views/books/edit.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > > "spec/views/books/index.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > > "spec/views/books/new.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > > "spec/views/books/new_rjs.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > > "spec/views/books/rjs_index.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > > "spec/views/books/show.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > > "spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb"
> --options
> > > >
> "/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/spec/spec.opts"
> > > > failed
> > > >
> /Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/rake/spectask.rb:166:in
> > > > `define'
> > > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3
> /lib/rake.rb:823:in
> > > > `verbose'
> > > >
> /Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/rake/spectask.rb:138:in
> > > > `define'
> > > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-
> 0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > > > `call'
> > > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > > > `execute'
> > > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > > > `each'
> > > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > > > `execute'
> > > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:362:in
> > > > `invoke'
> > > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-
> 0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:355:in
> > > > `synchronize'
> > > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:355:in
> > > > `invoke'
> > > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in
> > > > `top_level'
> > > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in
> > > > `each'
> > > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in
> > > > `top_level'
> > > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-
> 0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1761:in
> > > > `standard_exception_handling'
> > > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1733:in
> > > > `top_level'
> > > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-
> > > > 0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1711:in `run'
> > > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1761:in
> > > > `standard_exception_handling'
> > > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1708:in
> > > > `run'
> > > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-
> 0.7.3/bin/rake:7
> > > > /usr/local/bin/rake:16:in `load'
> > > > /usr/local/bin/rake:16
> > > >
> > > > And the test is
> > > >
> > > > require File.dirname (__FILE__) + '/../../spec_helper'
> > > >
> > > > describe "/layouts/application.html.erb" do
> > > >
> > > >   it "should render" do
> > > >     render "/layouts/application.html.erb"
> > > >   end
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > end
> > >
> > > Thanks. Unfortunately there's nothing in that backtrace that talks
> > > about application.html.erb. Would you please run this command and post
> > > the result?
> > >
> > > script/spec spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb -b
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > David
> >
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> > Very strange indeed.  I had to change the command to
> > script/spec
> spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb -b
> >
> > When I run this I get no errors at all.  But I also get no output at all.
> >
> > When I run the focused example in Textmate it passes but there is no
> listing of the example in the output.  This is the same as running the
> Behaviour Description
> >
> > It also does not seem to fail anything.  I ran the following
> >
> >
> > >   def do_render
> > >     render "/layouts/application.html.erb"
> > >   end
> > >
> > >   it "should render the template" do
> > >     do_render
> > >     response.should have_tag("not_there_tag")
> > >     flunk
> > >   end
> >
> > This seems to pass everything.  But when I run it with
> > rake spec I get the same error as before
> >
> > In an attempt to see if it is running the template at all I put a dodgy
> method call in the template to try to crash it.  It crashes.
> >
> > Here's the stack trace
> >
> > ActionView::TemplateError in '/layouts/application.html.erb should render
> the template'
> > undefined local variable or method `bad_method' for
> #<#<Class:0x3344718>:0x33446f0>
> > On line #14 of app/views/layouts/application.html.erb
> >
> >     11:         <%= javascript_include_tag :defaults, 'lowpro' -%>
> >     12:         <%= stylesheet_link_tag 'common' -%>
> >     13:         <%= resource_on_demand %>
> >     14:         <%= bad_method %>
> >     15:
> >     16: </head>
> >     17:
> >
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/app/views//layouts/application.html.erb:14:in
> `_run_erb_47app47views47layouts47application46html46erb'
> >     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-
> 1.13.3.6752/lib/action_view/base.rb:346:in `send'
> >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_view/base.rb:346:in
> `compile_and_render_template'
> >     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-
> 1.13.3.6752/lib/action_view/base.rb:322:in `render_template_old'
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/stable/lib/haml/template.rb:96:in
> `render_template'
> >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752
> /lib/action_view/base.rb:282:in `render_file'
> >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/base.rb:854:in
> `render_file'
> >     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-
> 1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/base.rb:789:in
> `render_with_no_layout'
> >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/layout.rb:258:in
> `render_without_benchmark'
> >     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-
> 1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb:51:in
> `render'
> >     /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:293:in `measure'
> >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb:51:in
> `render'
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/view.rb:55:in
> `send'
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/view.rb:55:in
> `render'
> >     spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb:6:in
> `do_render'
> >     spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb:10
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:81:in
> `instance_eval'
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:81:in
> `run_example'
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:26:in
> `run'
> >     /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/timeout.rb:48:in `timeout'
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:24:in
> `run'
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour.rb:80:in
> `run'
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour.rb:74:in
> `each'
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour.rb:74:in
> `run'
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:58:in
> `run_behaviours'
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:57:in
> `each'
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:57:in
> `run_behaviours'
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:21:in
> `run'
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/command_line.rb:17:in
> `run'
> >     script/spec:4
> >
> > I've changed to a haml template, and used the same spec but with a
> different file (.haml) to render and it ran fine.  Passes everything with
> complete listings etc.
> >
> > I really don't know what to make of it.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Daniel
>
>
> David,
>
> Thankyou for being so patient.  I've discovered the issue.  I'm basically
> re-writing my app as I port it over to specs from a nasty mix of units and
> various plugins.
>
> During the move I've started to test the application layout where it tries
> to render a parital that I haven't got yet.
>
> Once I take the render :partial call out for the non existing partial,
> everything went back to normal.
>
> I hope I haven't wasted too much of your time.  I'm really sorry.

No worries Daniel - when I don't have the time I don't deal w/ this stuff :)

Cheers,
David

>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From has.sox at gmail.com  Sun Jul 15 10:48:38 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:48:38 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Specing Layouts
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707150736p10f172b8n345d2b6c0e3003eb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707140843w8e2630evc805db93c614c955@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707140950k2b347d7g2847dc1f62660b92@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707142025x28e39032j40ca2626c7ec210d@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707150558k448bf3c3mf24b40a3cd67a103@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707150707x706865acy681c97d9b069d614@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707150735t16867e62hdb7612c4643bd8ac@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707150736p10f172b8n345d2b6c0e3003eb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707150748o57e2928ep2ce4ee6ca90ddd49@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/16/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/15/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/16/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/15/07, David Chelimsky < dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 7/14/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/15/07, David Chelimsky < dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On 7/14/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've just started to try and spec my application.html.erblayout
> > as one
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the view specs but it totally barfs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm guessing that it's due to the yield statements in the
> layout.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any clues as to how to proceed?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Backtrace please? Could be any number of things.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry,  here it is
> > > > >
> > > > > ......rake aborted!
> > > > > Command ruby
> > > > >
> >
> -I"/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib"
> > > > >
> >
> "/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/bin/spec"
> > > > > "spec/controllers/books_controller_spec.rb"
> > > > > "spec/controllers/sessions_controller_spec.rb"
> > > > > "spec/controllers/users_controller_spec.rb"
> > > > > "spec/helpers/books_helper_spec.rb"
> > > > > "spec/helpers/sessions_helper_spec.rb"
> > > > > "spec/helpers/users_helper_spec.rb"
> > > > > "spec/models/book_spec.rb"
> > > > > "spec/models/user_notifier_spec.rb"
> > > > > "spec/models/user_spec.rb"
> > > > > "spec/views/books/_detail.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > > > "spec/views/books/edit.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > > > "spec/views/books/index.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > > > "spec/views/books/new.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > > > "spec/views/books/new_rjs.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > > > "spec/views/books/rjs_index.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > > > "spec/views/books/show.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > > > > "spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb"
> > --options
> > > > >
> >
> "/Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/spec/spec.opts"
> > > > > failed
> > > > >
> >
> /Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/rake/spectask.rb:166:in
> > > > > `define'
> > > > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3
> > /lib/rake.rb:823:in
> > > > > `verbose'
> > > > >
> >
> /Users/dneighman/Documents/Projects/rails_projects/update_to_clippings/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/rake/spectask.rb:138:in
> > > > > `define'
> > > > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-
> > 0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > > > > `call'
> > > > >
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > > > > `execute'
> > > > >
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > > > > `each'
> > > > >
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:392:in
> > > > > `execute'
> > > > >
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:362:in
> > > > > `invoke'
> > > > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-
> > 0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:355:in
> > > > > `synchronize'
> > > > >
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:355:in
> > > > > `invoke'
> > > > >
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in
> > > > > `top_level'
> > > > >
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in
> > > > > `each'
> > > > >
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1739:in
> > > > > `top_level'
> > > > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-
> > 0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1761:in
> > > > > `standard_exception_handling'
> > > > >
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1733:in
> > > > > `top_level'
> > > > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-
> > > > > 0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1711:in `run'
> > > > >
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1761:in
> > > > > `standard_exception_handling'
> > > > >
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.7.3/lib/rake.rb:1708:in
> > > > > `run'
> > > > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-
> > 0.7.3/bin/rake:7
> > > > > /usr/local/bin/rake:16:in `load'
> > > > > /usr/local/bin/rake:16
> > > > >
> > > > > And the test is
> > > > >
> > > > > require File.dirname (__FILE__) + '/../../spec_helper'
> > > > >
> > > > > describe "/layouts/application.html.erb" do
> > > > >
> > > > >   it "should render" do
> > > > >     render "/layouts/application.html.erb"
> > > > >   end
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > end
> > > >
> > > > Thanks. Unfortunately there's nothing in that backtrace that talks
> > > > about application.html.erb. Would you please run this command and
> post
> > > > the result?
> > > >
> > > > script/spec spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb -b
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > David
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi David,
> > >
> > > Very strange indeed.  I had to change the command to
> > > script/spec
> > spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb -b
> > >
> > > When I run this I get no errors at all.  But I also get no output at
> all.
> > >
> > > When I run the focused example in Textmate it passes but there is no
> > listing of the example in the output.  This is the same as running the
> > Behaviour Description
> > >
> > > It also does not seem to fail anything.  I ran the following
> > >
> > >
> > > >   def do_render
> > > >     render "/layouts/application.html.erb"
> > > >   end
> > > >
> > > >   it "should render the template" do
> > > >     do_render
> > > >     response.should have_tag("not_there_tag")
> > > >     flunk
> > > >   end
> > >
> > > This seems to pass everything.  But when I run it with
> > > rake spec I get the same error as before
> > >
> > > In an attempt to see if it is running the template at all I put a
> dodgy
> > method call in the template to try to crash it.  It crashes.
> > >
> > > Here's the stack trace
> > >
> > > ActionView::TemplateError in '/layouts/application.html.erb should
> render
> > the template'
> > > undefined local variable or method `bad_method' for
> > #<#<Class:0x3344718>:0x33446f0>
> > > On line #14 of app/views/layouts/application.html.erb
> > >
> > >     11:         <%= javascript_include_tag :defaults, 'lowpro' -%>
> > >     12:         <%= stylesheet_link_tag 'common' -%>
> > >     13:         <%= resource_on_demand %>
> > >     14:         <%= bad_method %>
> > >     15:
> > >     16: </head>
> > >     17:
> > >
> > >
> > #{RAILS_ROOT}/app/views//layouts/application.html.erb:14:in
> > `_run_erb_47app47views47layouts47application46html46erb'
> > >     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-
> > 1.13.3.6752/lib/action_view/base.rb:346:in `send'
> > >
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752
> /lib/action_view/base.rb:346:in
> > `compile_and_render_template'
> > >     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-
> > 1.13.3.6752/lib/action_view/base.rb:322:in `render_template_old'
> > >
> > #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/stable/lib/haml/template.rb:96:in
> > `render_template'
> > >
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752
> > /lib/action_view/base.rb:282:in `render_file'
> > >
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752
> /lib/action_controller/base.rb:854:in
> > `render_file'
> > >     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-
> > 1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/base.rb:789:in
> > `render_with_no_layout'
> > >
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752
> /lib/action_controller/layout.rb:258:in
> > `render_without_benchmark'
> > >     /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-
> > 1.13.3.6752/lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb:51:in
> > `render'
> > >     /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:293:in `measure'
> > >
> > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.13.3.6752
> /lib/action_controller/benchmarking.rb:51:in
> > `render'
> > >
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/view.rb:55:in
> > `send'
> > >
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/view.rb:55:in
> > `render'
> > >     spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb:6:in
> > `do_render'
> > >     spec/views/layouts/application.html.erb_spec.rb:10
> > >
> > #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:81:in
> > `instance_eval'
> > >
> > #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:81:in
> > `run_example'
> > >
> > #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:26:in
> > `run'
> > >     /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/timeout.rb:48:in `timeout'
> > >
> > #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:24:in
> > `run'
> > >
> > #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour.rb:80:in
> > `run'
> > >
> > #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour.rb:74:in
> > `each'
> > >
> > #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour.rb:74:in
> > `run'
> > >
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:58:in
> > `run_behaviours'
> > >
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:57:in
> > `each'
> > >
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:57:in
> > `run_behaviours'
> > >
> >
> #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:21:in
> > `run'
> > >
> > #{RAILS_ROOT}/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/command_line.rb:17:in
> > `run'
> > >     script/spec:4
> > >
> > > I've changed to a haml template, and used the same spec but with a
> > different file (.haml) to render and it ran fine.  Passes everything
> with
> > complete listings etc.
> > >
> > > I really don't know what to make of it.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Daniel
> >
> >
> > David,
> >
> > Thankyou for being so patient.  I've discovered the issue.  I'm
> basically
> > re-writing my app as I port it over to specs from a nasty mix of units
> and
> > various plugins.
> >
> > During the move I've started to test the application layout where it
> tries
> > to render a parital that I haven't got yet.
> >
> > Once I take the render :partial call out for the non existing partial,
> > everything went back to normal.
> >
> > I hope I haven't wasted too much of your time.  I'm really sorry.
>
> No worries Daniel - when I don't have the time I don't deal w/ this stuff
> :)
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> >
> > Cheers
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> >



David,

I've gone through quite a few templates in haml now with specs and they all
seem to work fine.  I'm on edge rails.  Don't know if that makes a
difference.

Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070716/4739d4e1/attachment-0001.html 

From crafterm at gmail.com  Mon Jul 16 07:02:03 2007
From: crafterm at gmail.com (Marcus Crafter)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:02:03 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Accessing content_for html in view specs?
Message-ID: <2EA1205C-D4B2-41E9-B9E0-EF6705A63200@gmail.com>

Hi All,

Hope all is going well.

I've got a few views that create some content using 'content_for' blocks

<% content_for :blah do %>
	.....
<% end %>

Has anyone worked out a way to be able to access the html that's  
generated inside those blocks?

Since they're not part of the view, have_tag('') seems to miss them,  
and at the moment I can't find a way to be able to access the  
generated content?

Any thoughts, ideas appreciated.

Cheers,

Marcus


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul 16 07:04:26 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 06:04:26 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Accessing content_for html in view specs?
In-Reply-To: <2EA1205C-D4B2-41E9-B9E0-EF6705A63200@gmail.com>
References: <2EA1205C-D4B2-41E9-B9E0-EF6705A63200@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707160404j24ed9c40m9102ed0fe58c3d99@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/16/07, Marcus Crafter <crafterm at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Hope all is going well.
>
> I've got a few views that create some content using 'content_for' blocks
>
> <% content_for :blah do %>
>         .....
> <% end %>
>
> Has anyone worked out a way to be able to access the html that's
> generated inside those blocks?
>
> Since they're not part of the view, have_tag('') seems to miss them,
> and at the moment I can't find a way to be able to access the
> generated content?
>
> Any thoughts, ideas appreciated.

Since have_tag wraps assert_select, you may want to post this to the
rails mailing lists as well.

>
> Cheers,
>
> Marcus
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From tom at experthuman.com  Mon Jul 16 07:11:57 2007
From: tom at experthuman.com (Tom Stuart)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:11:57 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Accessing content_for html in view specs?
In-Reply-To: <2EA1205C-D4B2-41E9-B9E0-EF6705A63200@gmail.com>
References: <2EA1205C-D4B2-41E9-B9E0-EF6705A63200@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EB3925CC-78B5-485E-99AF-4146C1749D27@experthuman.com>

On 16 Jul 2007, at 12:02, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> <% content_for :blah do %> ..... <% end %>
> Has anyone worked out a way to be able to access the html that's
> generated inside those blocks?

It ends up in @content_for_blah, doesn't it?

From crafterm at redartisan.com  Mon Jul 16 07:14:44 2007
From: crafterm at redartisan.com (Marcus Crafter)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:14:44 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Accessing content_for html in view specs?
In-Reply-To: <EB3925CC-78B5-485E-99AF-4146C1749D27@experthuman.com>
References: <2EA1205C-D4B2-41E9-B9E0-EF6705A63200@gmail.com>
	<EB3925CC-78B5-485E-99AF-4146C1749D27@experthuman.com>
Message-ID: <A5220E70-EFDD-4BC9-8259-BB20D184EA2C@redartisan.com>

On 16/07/2007, at 9:11 PM, Tom Stuart wrote:

> On 16 Jul 2007, at 12:02, Marcus Crafter wrote:
>> <% content_for :blah do %> ..... <% end %>
>> Has anyone worked out a way to be able to access the html that's
>> generated inside those blocks?
>
> It ends up in @content_for_blah, doesn't it?

I thought it did too, but that's a nil reference in the spec  
unfortunately.

Cheers,

Marcus

From tom at experthuman.com  Mon Jul 16 07:41:34 2007
From: tom at experthuman.com (Tom Stuart)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:41:34 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Accessing content_for html in view specs?
In-Reply-To: <A5220E70-EFDD-4BC9-8259-BB20D184EA2C@redartisan.com>
References: <2EA1205C-D4B2-41E9-B9E0-EF6705A63200@gmail.com>
	<EB3925CC-78B5-485E-99AF-4146C1749D27@experthuman.com>
	<A5220E70-EFDD-4BC9-8259-BB20D184EA2C@redartisan.com>
Message-ID: <8033C0B7-7045-4493-9C6F-AACFD6CC2257@experthuman.com>

On 16 Jul 2007, at 12:14, Marcus Crafter wrote:
> On 16/07/2007, at 9:11 PM, Tom Stuart wrote:
>> On 16 Jul 2007, at 12:02, Marcus Crafter wrote:
>>> <% content_for :blah do %> ..... <% end %>
>>> It ends up in @content_for_blah, doesn't it?
> I thought it did too, but that's a nil reference in the spec
> unfortunately.

Well, it's an instance variable in the view, not your spec. This was  
discussed recently on rspec-users (starts at http://rubyforge.org/ 
pipermail/rspec-users/2007-June/002222.html and continues into July)  
with the general consensus being that you can write a helper or use  
instance_eval if you *really* want to access your view's instance  
variables, but that you're almost always better off specifying this  
sort of behaviour by expecting the output to show up in the place  
where it's meant to show up, e.g. have_tag() on the view that does  
yield :blah in your case, rather than fiddling about with state.

Cheers,
-Tom

From rctucker at u.washington.edu  Mon Jul 16 20:43:38 2007
From: rctucker at u.washington.edu (Ryan Tucker)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:43:38 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Getting past my login system
Message-ID: <469C10BA.2080203@u.washington.edu>



Thank you in advance for your help.  I am relatively new to both Rails 
and Rspec and I am hoping for some insight from some experienced veterans.

Right now I am using Rspec for code that has already been written so 
that additional functionality can be developed using the BDD method. My 
problem shows up when I try to spec controllers that are behind the 
login system.  Each page checks for the session[:user], and if they do 
not exists, requires them to login.  Logging in is handled by one 
controller (the Admin controller) and I want to access a page under 
another controller (say a Students controller).

In my students_controller_spec.rb, I want want to make sure 
http://test.host/students is successfully displayed, so I wrote 
something like:

  it "should be successful" do
    get :index
    response.should be_success
  end

The problem is that is keeps redirecting to my login page at 
http://test.host/login.  I tried then setting session[:user] and doing a 
post to my login page to simulate a login so that I could access the 
correct page, but that does not seem to work.  I tried a number of 
things, including the following:

def do_login
  @user = User.find(:first, :conditions => ['username = ?' , 'ryan'] )
  session[:user] = @user.id
  post :login, :path => []
end

describe StudentsController do
  it "should be successful" do
    do_login
    get :index
    response.should be_success
  end
end

This still results in being redirected to the login page at 
http://test.host/login when I want to go to http://test.host/students.  
Also, I realize I am actually doing a call on my test database for 
this.  Part of the reason is that code that called during login checks 
fields of a user.  The other reason is I could not get it to work using 
stubs, but that might just have been because I was not using them properly.

Any insight will be helpful, thanks!

-Ryan

From rctucker at u.washington.edu  Mon Jul 16 22:21:04 2007
From: rctucker at u.washington.edu (Ryan Tucker)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:21:04 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Getting past my login system
In-Reply-To: <469C10BA.2080203@u.washington.edu>
References: <469C10BA.2080203@u.washington.edu>
Message-ID: <469C2790.6040607@u.washington.edu>

Ryan Tucker wrote:
> Thank you in advance for your help.  I am relatively new to both Rails 
> and Rspec and I am hoping for some insight from some experienced veterans.
>
> Right now I am using Rspec for code that has already been written so 
> that additional functionality can be developed using the BDD method. My 
> problem shows up when I try to spec controllers that are behind the 
> login system.  Each page checks for the session[:user], and if they do 
> not exists, requires them to login.  Logging in is handled by one 
> controller (the Admin controller) and I want to access a page under 
> another controller (say a Students controller).
>
> In my students_controller_spec.rb, I want want to make sure 
> http://test.host/students is successfully displayed, so I wrote 
> something like:
>
>   it "should be successful" do
>     get :index
>     response.should be_success
>   end
>
> The problem is that is keeps redirecting to my login page at 
> http://test.host/login.  I tried then setting session[:user] and doing a 
> post to my login page to simulate a login so that I could access the 
> correct page, but that does not seem to work.  I tried a number of 
> things, including the following:
>
> def do_login
>   @user = User.find(:first, :conditions => ['username = ?' , 'ryan'] )
>   session[:user] = @user.id
>   post :login, :path => []
> end
>
> describe StudentsController do
>   it "should be successful" do
>     do_login
>     get :index
>     response.should be_success
>   end
> end
>
> This still results in being redirected to the login page at 
> http://test.host/login when I want to go to http://test.host/students.  
> Also, I realize I am actually doing a call on my test database for 
> this.  Part of the reason is that code that called during login checks 
> fields of a user.  The other reason is I could not get it to work using 
> stubs, but that might just have been because I was not using them properly.
>
> Any insight will be helpful, thanks!
>
> -Ryan
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>   
Forgot one thing.

In trying to do the post, I get the error that "No action responded to 
login" suggesting that I am not properly accessing the login function in 
my Admin controller.

Thanks again,
Ryan

From has.sox at gmail.com  Mon Jul 16 22:32:37 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:32:37 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Getting past my login system
In-Reply-To: <469C2790.6040607@u.washington.edu>
References: <469C10BA.2080203@u.washington.edu>
	<469C2790.6040607@u.washington.edu>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707161932s2af745b2h4e9ad4dbe2d1ed6f@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/17/07, Ryan Tucker <rctucker at u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> Ryan Tucker wrote:
> > Thank you in advance for your help.  I am relatively new to both Rails
> > and Rspec and I am hoping for some insight from some experienced
> veterans.
> >
> > Right now I am using Rspec for code that has already been written so
> > that additional functionality can be developed using the BDD method. My
> > problem shows up when I try to spec controllers that are behind the
> > login system.  Each page checks for the session[:user], and if they do
> > not exists, requires them to login.  Logging in is handled by one
> > controller (the Admin controller) and I want to access a page under
> > another controller (say a Students controller).
> >
> > In my students_controller_spec.rb, I want want to make sure
> > http://test.host/students is successfully displayed, so I wrote
> > something like:
> >
> >   it "should be successful" do
> >     get :index
> >     response.should be_success
> >   end
> >
> > The problem is that is keeps redirecting to my login page at
> > http://test.host/login.  I tried then setting session[:user] and doing a
> > post to my login page to simulate a login so that I could access the
> > correct page, but that does not seem to work.  I tried a number of
> > things, including the following:
> >
> > def do_login
> >   @user = User.find(:first, :conditions => ['username = ?' , 'ryan'] )
> >   session[:user] = @user.id
> >   post :login, :path => []
> > end
> >
> > describe StudentsController do
> >   it "should be successful" do
> >     do_login
> >     get :index
> >     response.should be_success
> >   end
> > end
> >
> > This still results in being redirected to the login page at
> > http://test.host/login when I want to go to http://test.host/students.
> > Also, I realize I am actually doing a call on my test database for
> > this.  Part of the reason is that code that called during login checks
> > fields of a user.  The other reason is I could not get it to work using
> > stubs, but that might just have been because I was not using them
> properly.
> >
> > Any insight will be helpful, thanks!
> >
> > -Ryan
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> Forgot one thing.
>
> In trying to do the post, I get the error that "No action responded to
> login" suggesting that I am not properly accessing the login function in
> my Admin controller.
>
> Thanks again,
> Ryan



Ryan, the login action is being called on your  StudentsController and so
it's not found.

If it's the presence of the session[:user] that tells the before_filter that
your logged in, the you don't need to do the post.  In fact you shouldn't
post, since as you found out if you post to login, your posting to the login
action of the controller your currently in.  Bad.  Your setting the session
and you shouldn't need to do any more.

HTH
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070717/eeba2f1f/attachment-0001.html 

From rctucker at u.washington.edu  Mon Jul 16 22:44:08 2007
From: rctucker at u.washington.edu (Ryan Tucker)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:44:08 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Getting past my login system
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707161932s2af745b2h4e9ad4dbe2d1ed6f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <469C10BA.2080203@u.washington.edu>	<469C2790.6040607@u.washington.edu>
	<2fff50390707161932s2af745b2h4e9ad4dbe2d1ed6f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <469C2CF8.3000706@u.washington.edu>

Daniel N wrote:
>
>
> On 7/17/07, *Ryan Tucker* <rctucker at u.washington.edu 
> <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>> wrote:
>
>     Ryan Tucker wrote:
>     > Thank you in advance for your help.  I am relatively new to both
>     Rails
>     > and Rspec and I am hoping for some insight from some experienced
>     veterans.
>     >
>     > Right now I am using Rspec for code that has already been
>     written so
>     > that additional functionality can be developed using the BDD
>     method. My
>     > problem shows up when I try to spec controllers that are behind the
>     > login system.  Each page checks for the session[:user], and if
>     they do
>     > not exists, requires them to login.  Logging in is handled by one
>     > controller (the Admin controller) and I want to access a page under
>     > another controller (say a Students controller).
>     >
>     > In my students_controller_spec.rb, I want want to make sure
>     > http://test.host/students is successfully displayed, so I wrote
>     > something like:
>     >
>     >   it "should be successful" do
>     >     get :index
>     >     response.should be_success
>     >   end
>     >
>     > The problem is that is keeps redirecting to my login page at
>     > http://test.host/login.  I tried then setting session[:user] and
>     doing a
>     > post to my login page to simulate a login so that I could access the
>     > correct page, but that does not seem to work.  I tried a number of
>     > things, including the following:
>     >
>     > def do_login
>     >   @user = User.find(:first, :conditions => ['username = ?' ,
>     'ryan'] )
>     >   session[:user] = @user.id <http://user.id>
>     >   post :login, :path => []
>     > end
>     >
>     > describe StudentsController do
>     >   it "should be successful" do
>     >     do_login
>     >     get :index
>     >     response.should be_success
>     >   end
>     > end
>     >
>     > This still results in being redirected to the login page at
>     > http://test.host/login when I want to go to
>     http://test.host/students.
>     > Also, I realize I am actually doing a call on my test database for
>     > this.  Part of the reason is that code that called during login
>     checks
>     > fields of a user.  The other reason is I could not get it to
>     work using
>     > stubs, but that might just have been because I was not using
>     them properly.
>     >
>     > Any insight will be helpful, thanks!
>     >
>     > -Ryan
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > rspec-users mailing list
>     > rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
>     > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>     >
>     Forgot one thing.
>
>     In trying to do the post, I get the error that "No action
>     responded to
>     login" suggesting that I am not properly accessing the login
>     function in
>     my Admin controller.
>
>     Thanks again,
>     Ryan
>
>
>
> Ryan, the login action is being called on your  StudentsController and 
> so it's not found.
>
> If it's the presence of the session[:user] that tells the 
> before_filter that your logged in, the you don't need to do the post.  
> In fact you shouldn't post, since as you found out if you post to 
> login, your posting to the login action of the controller your 
> currently in.  Bad.  Your setting the session and you shouldn't need 
> to do any more. 
>
> HTH
> Daniel
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Thanks, Daniel.

That was my understanding as well, but, for some reason, that has not 
been enough.  The post was an attempt to simulate an actual login by 
posting to another controller (I know it was bad...) since just setting 
the session[:user] was not a success.  Thank you for your help though.

Take care,
Ryan

From has.sox at gmail.com  Mon Jul 16 23:38:47 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:38:47 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Getting past my login system
In-Reply-To: <469C2CF8.3000706@u.washington.edu>
References: <469C10BA.2080203@u.washington.edu>
	<469C2790.6040607@u.washington.edu>
	<2fff50390707161932s2af745b2h4e9ad4dbe2d1ed6f@mail.gmail.com>
	<469C2CF8.3000706@u.washington.edu>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707162038h3666c988j8d6a39d9e77065a9@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/17/07, Ryan Tucker <rctucker at u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> Daniel N wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 7/17/07, *Ryan Tucker* <rctucker at u.washington.edu
> > <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>> wrote:
> >
> >     Ryan Tucker wrote:
> >     > Thank you in advance for your help.  I am relatively new to both
> >     Rails
> >     > and Rspec and I am hoping for some insight from some experienced
> >     veterans.
> >     >
> >     > Right now I am using Rspec for code that has already been
> >     written so
> >     > that additional functionality can be developed using the BDD
> >     method. My
> >     > problem shows up when I try to spec controllers that are behind
> the
> >     > login system.  Each page checks for the session[:user], and if
> >     they do
> >     > not exists, requires them to login.  Logging in is handled by one
> >     > controller (the Admin controller) and I want to access a page
> under
> >     > another controller (say a Students controller).
> >     >
> >     > In my students_controller_spec.rb, I want want to make sure
> >     > http://test.host/students is successfully displayed, so I wrote
> >     > something like:
> >     >
> >     >   it "should be successful" do
> >     >     get :index
> >     >     response.should be_success
> >     >   end
> >     >
> >     > The problem is that is keeps redirecting to my login page at
> >     > http://test.host/login.  I tried then setting session[:user] and
> >     doing a
> >     > post to my login page to simulate a login so that I could access
> the
> >     > correct page, but that does not seem to work.  I tried a number of
> >     > things, including the following:
> >     >
> >     > def do_login
> >     >   @user = User.find(:first, :conditions => ['username = ?' ,
> >     'ryan'] )
> >     >   session[:user] = @user.id <http://user.id>
> >     >   post :login, :path => []
> >     > end
> >     >
> >     > describe StudentsController do
> >     >   it "should be successful" do
> >     >     do_login
> >     >     get :index
> >     >     response.should be_success
> >     >   end
> >     > end
> >     >
> >     > This still results in being redirected to the login page at
> >     > http://test.host/login when I want to go to
> >     http://test.host/students.
> >     > Also, I realize I am actually doing a call on my test database for
> >     > this.  Part of the reason is that code that called during login
> >     checks
> >     > fields of a user.  The other reason is I could not get it to
> >     work using
> >     > stubs, but that might just have been because I was not using
> >     them properly.
> >     >
> >     > Any insight will be helpful, thanks!
> >     >
> >     > -Ryan
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > rspec-users mailing list
> >     > rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
> >     > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >     >
> >     Forgot one thing.
> >
> >     In trying to do the post, I get the error that "No action
> >     responded to
> >     login" suggesting that I am not properly accessing the login
> >     function in
> >     my Admin controller.
> >
> >     Thanks again,
> >     Ryan
> >
> >
> >
> > Ryan, the login action is being called on your  StudentsController and
> > so it's not found.
> >
> > If it's the presence of the session[:user] that tells the
> > before_filter that your logged in, the you don't need to do the post.
> > In fact you shouldn't post, since as you found out if you post to
> > login, your posting to the login action of the controller your
> > currently in.  Bad.  Your setting the session and you shouldn't need
> > to do any more.
> >
> > HTH
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> Thanks, Daniel.
>
> That was my understanding as well, but, for some reason, that has not
> been enough.  The post was an attempt to simulate an actual login by
> posting to another controller (I know it was bad...) since just setting
> the session[:user] was not a success.  Thank you for your help though.
>
> Take care,
> Ryan


Can you post your before_filter method that checks if your logged in?

Also your login method in your Admin controller.

Cheers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070717/f06acd2a/attachment.html 

From rctucker at u.washington.edu  Tue Jul 17 01:28:55 2007
From: rctucker at u.washington.edu (Ryan Tucker)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:28:55 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Getting past my login system
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707162038h3666c988j8d6a39d9e77065a9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <469C10BA.2080203@u.washington.edu>	<469C2790.6040607@u.washington.edu>	<2fff50390707161932s2af745b2h4e9ad4dbe2d1ed6f@mail.gmail.com>	<469C2CF8.3000706@u.washington.edu>
	<2fff50390707162038h3666c988j8d6a39d9e77065a9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <469C5397.1010405@u.washington.edu>

Daniel N wrote:
>
>
> On 7/17/07, *Ryan Tucker* <rctucker at u.washington.edu 
> <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>> wrote:
>
>     Daniel N wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > On 7/17/07, *Ryan Tucker* <rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>
>     > <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Ryan Tucker wrote:
>     >     > Thank you in advance for your help.  I am relatively new
>     to both
>     >     Rails
>     >     > and Rspec and I am hoping for some insight from some
>     experienced
>     >     veterans.
>     >     >
>     >     > Right now I am using Rspec for code that has already been
>     >     written so
>     >     > that additional functionality can be developed using the BDD
>     >     method. My
>     >     > problem shows up when I try to spec controllers that are
>     behind the
>     >     > login system.  Each page checks for the session[:user], and if
>     >     they do
>     >     > not exists, requires them to login.  Logging in is handled
>     by one
>     >     > controller (the Admin controller) and I want to access a
>     page under
>     >     > another controller (say a Students controller).
>     >     >
>     >     > In my students_controller_spec.rb, I want want to make sure
>     >     > http://test.host/students is successfully displayed, so I
>     wrote
>     >     > something like:
>     >     >
>     >     >   it "should be successful" do
>     >     >     get :index
>     >     >     response.should be_success
>     >     >   end
>     >     >
>     >     > The problem is that is keeps redirecting to my login page at
>     >     > http://test.host/login.  I tried then setting
>     session[:user] and
>     >     doing a
>     >     > post to my login page to simulate a login so that I could
>     access the
>     >     > correct page, but that does not seem to work.  I tried a
>     number of
>     >     > things, including the following:
>     >     >
>     >     > def do_login
>     >     >   @user = User.find(:first, :conditions => ['username = ?' ,
>     >     'ryan'] )
>     >     >   session[:user] = @ user.id <http://user.id> <http://user.id>
>     >     >   post :login, :path => []
>     >     > end
>     >     >
>     >     > describe StudentsController do
>     >     >   it "should be successful" do
>     >     >     do_login
>     >     >     get :index
>     >     >     response.should be_success
>     >     >   end
>     >     > end
>     >     >
>     >     > This still results in being redirected to the login page at
>     >     > http://test.host/login when I want to go to
>     >     http://test.host/students.
>     >     > Also, I realize I am actually doing a call on my test
>     database for
>     >     > this.  Part of the reason is that code that called during
>     login
>     >     checks
>     >     > fields of a user.  The other reason is I could not get it to
>     >     work using
>     >     > stubs, but that might just have been because I was not using
>     >     them properly.
>     >     >
>     >     > Any insight will be helpful, thanks!
>     >     >
>     >     > -Ryan
>     >     > _______________________________________________
>     >     > rspec-users mailing list
>     >     > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org> <mailto:
>     rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>>
>     >     > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>     >     >
>     >     Forgot one thing.
>     >
>     >     In trying to do the post, I get the error that "No action
>     >     responded to
>     >     login" suggesting that I am not properly accessing the login
>     >     function in
>     >     my Admin controller.
>     >
>     >     Thanks again,
>     >     Ryan
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Ryan, the login action is being called on
>     your  StudentsController and
>     > so it's not found.
>     >
>     > If it's the presence of the session[:user] that tells the
>     > before_filter that your logged in, the you don't need to do the
>     post.
>     > In fact you shouldn't post, since as you found out if you post to
>     > login, your posting to the login action of the controller your
>     > currently in.  Bad.  Your setting the session and you shouldn't need
>     > to do any more.
>     >
>     > HTH
>     > Daniel
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > rspec-users mailing list
>     > rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
>     > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>     Thanks, Daniel.
>
>     That was my understanding as well, but, for some reason, that has not
>     been enough.  The post was an attempt to simulate an actual login by
>     posting to another controller (I know it was bad...) since just
>     setting
>     the session[:user] was not a success.  Thank you for your help though.
>
>     Take care,
>     Ryan
>
>
> Can you post your before_filter method that checks if your logged in?
>
> Also your login method in your Admin controller.
>
> Cheers
>  
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
  #  The Logins are to track a users activity, and this supports
  # when a user wants to access a page and needs to login first, sending 
them to it after they login.
  # Authenticate checks the username and password against the username 
and password in the
  # database.
  def login
    if request.post?
      if @current_user = User.authenticate(params[:username], 
params[:password])
        login = Login.create(:remote_ip => request.remote_ip.to_s, 
:user_agent => request.user_agent.to_s, :http_vars => request.env)
        @current_user.logins << login
        session[:user] = @current_user.id
        uri = session[:original_uri]
        session[:original_uri] = nil
        redirect_to uri || home_url
        return
      else
        flash[:error] = "Access denied"
      end
    end
   
    if session[:user]
      redirect_to home_url
      return false
    end
    set_page_title "Log In"
  end

  # This checks that there is a current user, and checks if they are active
  # In my case, I am keeping track of whether or not I have disabled
  # a user.  active?() returns true so long as they are have not been 
deactivated.
  def check_authentication
    unless @current_user and @current_user.active?
      session[:original_uri] = request.request_uri
      redirect_to log_in_url
      return false
    end
    true
  end


Thank you again for your help.

Take care,
Ryan

From has.sox at gmail.com  Tue Jul 17 01:55:46 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:55:46 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Getting past my login system
In-Reply-To: <469C5397.1010405@u.washington.edu>
References: <469C10BA.2080203@u.washington.edu>
	<469C2790.6040607@u.washington.edu>
	<2fff50390707161932s2af745b2h4e9ad4dbe2d1ed6f@mail.gmail.com>
	<469C2CF8.3000706@u.washington.edu>
	<2fff50390707162038h3666c988j8d6a39d9e77065a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<469C5397.1010405@u.washington.edu>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707162255n43b8da0l11edeca7f82dd015@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/17/07, Ryan Tucker <rctucker at u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> Daniel N wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 7/17/07, *Ryan Tucker* <rctucker at u.washington.edu
> > <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>> wrote:
> >
> >     Daniel N wrote:
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On 7/17/07, *Ryan Tucker* <rctucker at u.washington.edu
> >     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>
> >     > <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu
> >     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     Ryan Tucker wrote:
> >     >     > Thank you in advance for your help.  I am relatively new
> >     to both
> >     >     Rails
> >     >     > and Rspec and I am hoping for some insight from some
> >     experienced
> >     >     veterans.
> >     >     >
> >     >     > Right now I am using Rspec for code that has already been
> >     >     written so
> >     >     > that additional functionality can be developed using the BDD
> >     >     method. My
> >     >     > problem shows up when I try to spec controllers that are
> >     behind the
> >     >     > login system.  Each page checks for the session[:user], and
> if
> >     >     they do
> >     >     > not exists, requires them to login.  Logging in is handled
> >     by one
> >     >     > controller (the Admin controller) and I want to access a
> >     page under
> >     >     > another controller (say a Students controller).
> >     >     >
> >     >     > In my students_controller_spec.rb, I want want to make sure
> >     >     > http://test.host/students is successfully displayed, so I
> >     wrote
> >     >     > something like:
> >     >     >
> >     >     >   it "should be successful" do
> >     >     >     get :index
> >     >     >     response.should be_success
> >     >     >   end
> >     >     >
> >     >     > The problem is that is keeps redirecting to my login page at
> >     >     > http://test.host/login.  I tried then setting
> >     session[:user] and
> >     >     doing a
> >     >     > post to my login page to simulate a login so that I could
> >     access the
> >     >     > correct page, but that does not seem to work.  I tried a
> >     number of
> >     >     > things, including the following:
> >     >     >
> >     >     > def do_login
> >     >     >   @user = User.find(:first, :conditions => ['username = ?' ,
> >     >     'ryan'] )
> >     >     >   session[:user] = @ user.id <http://user.id> <
> http://user.id>
> >     >     >   post :login, :path => []
> >     >     > end
> >     >     >
> >     >     > describe StudentsController do
> >     >     >   it "should be successful" do
> >     >     >     do_login
> >     >     >     get :index
> >     >     >     response.should be_success
> >     >     >   end
> >     >     > end
> >     >     >
> >     >     > This still results in being redirected to the login page at
> >     >     > http://test.host/login when I want to go to
> >     >     http://test.host/students.
> >     >     > Also, I realize I am actually doing a call on my test
> >     database for
> >     >     > this.  Part of the reason is that code that called during
> >     login
> >     >     checks
> >     >     > fields of a user.  The other reason is I could not get it to
> >     >     work using
> >     >     > stubs, but that might just have been because I was not using
> >     >     them properly.
> >     >     >
> >     >     > Any insight will be helpful, thanks!
> >     >     >
> >     >     > -Ryan
> >     >     > _______________________________________________
> >     >     > rspec-users mailing list
> >     >     > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> >     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org> <mailto:
> >     rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>>
> >     >     > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >     >     >
> >     >     Forgot one thing.
> >     >
> >     >     In trying to do the post, I get the error that "No action
> >     >     responded to
> >     >     login" suggesting that I am not properly accessing the login
> >     >     function in
> >     >     my Admin controller.
> >     >
> >     >     Thanks again,
> >     >     Ryan
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Ryan, the login action is being called on
> >     your  StudentsController and
> >     > so it's not found.
> >     >
> >     > If it's the presence of the session[:user] that tells the
> >     > before_filter that your logged in, the you don't need to do the
> >     post.
> >     > In fact you shouldn't post, since as you found out if you post to
> >     > login, your posting to the login action of the controller your
> >     > currently in.  Bad.  Your setting the session and you shouldn't
> need
> >     > to do any more.
> >     >
> >     > HTH
> >     > Daniel
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > rspec-users mailing list
> >     > rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
> >     > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >     Thanks, Daniel.
> >
> >     That was my understanding as well, but, for some reason, that has
> not
> >     been enough.  The post was an attempt to simulate an actual login by
> >     posting to another controller (I know it was bad...) since just
> >     setting
> >     the session[:user] was not a success.  Thank you for your help
> though.
> >
> >     Take care,
> >     Ryan
> >
> >
> > Can you post your before_filter method that checks if your logged in?
> >
> > Also your login method in your Admin controller.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>   #  The Logins are to track a users activity, and this supports
>   # when a user wants to access a page and needs to login first, sending
> them to it after they login.
>   # Authenticate checks the username and password against the username
> and password in the
>   # database.
>   def login
>     if request.post?
>       if @current_user = User.authenticate(params[:username],
> params[:password])
>         login = Login.create(:remote_ip => request.remote_ip.to_s,
> :user_agent => request.user_agent.to_s, :http_vars => request.env)
>         @current_user.logins << login
>         session[:user] = @current_user.id
>         uri = session[:original_uri]
>         session[:original_uri] = nil
>         redirect_to uri || home_url
>         return
>       else
>         flash[:error] = "Access denied"
>       end
>     end
>
>     if session[:user]
>       redirect_to home_url
>       return false
>     end
>     set_page_title "Log In"
>   end
>
>   # This checks that there is a current user, and checks if they are
> active
>   # In my case, I am keeping track of whether or not I have disabled
>   # a user.  active?() returns true so long as they are have not been
> deactivated.
>   def check_authentication
>     unless @current_user and @current_user.active?
>       session[:original_uri] = request.request_uri
>       redirect_to log_in_url
>       return false
>     end
>     true
>   end
>
>
> Thank you again for your help.


I hope I can ;)

Take care,
> Ryan



Ok there's a fair bit of stuff going on in the login code.  It doesn't seem
that you've included your before_filter that checks to see if a user is
logged in in your controller.

Do you use a before_filter or some other method in the controller to check
for logged in status?  Can you post the code that checks if a user is logged
in for the controller.

Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070717/0d991eee/attachment.html 

From mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com  Tue Jul 17 01:53:59 2007
From: mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com (Scott Taylor)
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:53:59 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Getting past my login system
In-Reply-To: <469C10BA.2080203@u.washington.edu>
References: <469C10BA.2080203@u.washington.edu>
Message-ID: <974A7923-5F0D-479A-89C6-8A45C19B61A8@railsnewbie.com>


You'll probably want to stub the method 'find' on the user class,  
with a user mock:

before :each do
   @user = mock_model User
   User.stub!(:find).and_return @user
end

Then you can do the post on the controller you are spec'ing

You should also search the mailing list - this question has been  
asked numerous times, in various forms.  If none of those applies,  
let us know how it is different.

Cheers,

Scott Taylor


On Jul 16, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Ryan Tucker wrote:

>
>
> Thank you in advance for your help.  I am relatively new to both Rails
> and Rspec and I am hoping for some insight from some experienced  
> veterans.
>
> Right now I am using Rspec for code that has already been written so
> that additional functionality can be developed using the BDD  
> method. My
> problem shows up when I try to spec controllers that are behind the
> login system.  Each page checks for the session[:user], and if they do
> not exists, requires them to login.  Logging in is handled by one
> controller (the Admin controller) and I want to access a page under
> another controller (say a Students controller).
>
> In my students_controller_spec.rb, I want want to make sure
> http://test.host/students is successfully displayed, so I wrote
> something like:
>
>   it "should be successful" do
>     get :index
>     response.should be_success
>   end
>
> The problem is that is keeps redirecting to my login page at
> http://test.host/login.  I tried then setting session[:user] and  
> doing a
> post to my login page to simulate a login so that I could access the
> correct page, but that does not seem to work.  I tried a number of
> things, including the following:
>
> def do_login
>   @user = User.find(:first, :conditions => ['username = ?' , 'ryan'] )
>   session[:user] = @user.id
>   post :login, :path => []
> end
>
> describe StudentsController do
>   it "should be successful" do
>     do_login
>     get :index
>     response.should be_success
>   end
> end
>
> This still results in being redirected to the login page at
> http://test.host/login when I want to go to http://test.host/students.
> Also, I realize I am actually doing a call on my test database for
> this.  Part of the reason is that code that called during login checks
> fields of a user.  The other reason is I could not get it to work  
> using
> stubs, but that might just have been because I was not using them  
> properly.
>
> Any insight will be helpful, thanks!
>
> -Ryan
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From rctucker at u.washington.edu  Tue Jul 17 02:26:51 2007
From: rctucker at u.washington.edu (Ryan Tucker)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:26:51 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Getting past my login system
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707162255n43b8da0l11edeca7f82dd015@mail.gmail.com>
References: <469C10BA.2080203@u.washington.edu>	<469C2790.6040607@u.washington.edu>	<2fff50390707161932s2af745b2h4e9ad4dbe2d1ed6f@mail.gmail.com>	<469C2CF8.3000706@u.washington.edu>	<2fff50390707162038h3666c988j8d6a39d9e77065a9@mail.gmail.com>	<469C5397.1010405@u.washington.edu>
	<2fff50390707162255n43b8da0l11edeca7f82dd015@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <469C612B.8060700@u.washington.edu>

Daniel N wrote:
>
>
> On 7/17/07, *Ryan Tucker* <rctucker at u.washington.edu 
> <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>> wrote:
>
>     Daniel N wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > On 7/17/07, *Ryan Tucker* <rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>
>     > <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Daniel N wrote:
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > On 7/17/07, *Ryan Tucker* <rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>
>     >     <mailto: rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>>
>     >     > <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>
>     >     <mailto: rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>>>> wrote:
>     >     >
>     >     >     Ryan Tucker wrote:
>     >     >     > Thank you in advance for your help.  I am relatively new
>     >     to both
>     >     >     Rails
>     >     >     > and Rspec and I am hoping for some insight from some
>     >     experienced
>     >     >     veterans.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > Right now I am using Rspec for code that has already
>     been
>     >     >     written so
>     >     >     > that additional functionality can be developed using
>     the BDD
>     >     >     method. My
>     >     >     > problem shows up when I try to spec controllers that are
>     >     behind the
>     >     >     > login system.  Each page checks for the
>     session[:user], and if
>     >     >     they do
>     >     >     > not exists, requires them to login.  Logging in is
>     handled
>     >     by one
>     >     >     > controller (the Admin controller) and I want to access a
>     >     page under
>     >     >     > another controller (say a Students controller).
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > In my students_controller_spec.rb, I want want to
>     make sure
>     >     >     > http://test.host/students is successfully displayed,
>     so I
>     >     wrote
>     >     >     > something like:
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >   it "should be successful" do
>     >     >     >     get :index
>     >     >     >     response.should be_success
>     >     >     >   end
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > The problem is that is keeps redirecting to my login
>     page at
>     >     >     > http://test.host/login.  I tried then setting
>     >     session[:user] and
>     >     >     doing a
>     >     >     > post to my login page to simulate a login so that I
>     could
>     >     access the
>     >     >     > correct page, but that does not seem to work.  I tried a
>     >     number of
>     >     >     > things, including the following:
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > def do_login
>     >     >     >   @user = User.find(:first, :conditions =>
>     ['username = ?' ,
>     >     >     'ryan'] )
>     >     >     >   session[:user] = @ user.id <http://user.id>
>     <http://user.id> <http://user.id>
>     >     >     >   post :login, :path => []
>     >     >     > end
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > describe StudentsController do
>     >     >     >   it "should be successful" do
>     >     >     >     do_login
>     >     >     >     get :index
>     >     >     >     response.should be_success
>     >     >     >   end
>     >     >     > end
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > This still results in being redirected to the login
>     page at
>     >     >     > http://test.host/login when I want to go to
>     >     >     http://test.host/students.
>     >     >     > Also, I realize I am actually doing a call on my test
>     >     database for
>     >     >     > this.  Part of the reason is that code that called
>     during
>     >     login
>     >     >     checks
>     >     >     > fields of a user.  The other reason is I could not
>     get it to
>     >     >     work using
>     >     >     > stubs, but that might just have been because I was
>     not using
>     >     >     them properly.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > Any insight will be helpful, thanks!
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > -Ryan
>     >     >     > _______________________________________________
>     >     >     > rspec-users mailing list
>     >     >     > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
>     >     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>> <mailto:
>     >     rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
>     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>>>
>     >     >     > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     Forgot one thing.
>     >     >
>     >     >     In trying to do the post, I get the error that "No action
>     >     >     responded to
>     >     >     login" suggesting that I am not properly accessing the
>     login
>     >     >     function in
>     >     >     my Admin controller.
>     >     >
>     >     >     Thanks again,
>     >     >     Ryan
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > Ryan, the login action is being called on
>     >     your  StudentsController and
>     >     > so it's not found.
>     >     >
>     >     > If it's the presence of the session[:user] that tells the
>     >     > before_filter that your logged in, the you don't need to
>     do the
>     >     post.
>     >     > In fact you shouldn't post, since as you found out if you
>     post to
>     >     > login, your posting to the login action of the controller your
>     >     > currently in.  Bad.  Your setting the session and you
>     shouldn't need
>     >     > to do any more.
>     >     >
>     >     > HTH
>     >     > Daniel
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >    
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >
>     >     >
>     >     > _______________________________________________
>     >     > rspec-users mailing list
>     >     > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
>     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>>
>     >     > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>     >     Thanks, Daniel.
>     >
>     >     That was my understanding as well, but, for some reason,
>     that has not
>     >     been enough.  The post was an attempt to simulate an actual
>     login by
>     >     posting to another controller (I know it was bad...) since just
>     >     setting
>     >     the session[:user] was not a success.  Thank you for your
>     help though.
>     >
>     >     Take care,
>     >     Ryan
>     >
>     >
>     > Can you post your before_filter method that checks if your
>     logged in?
>     >
>     > Also your login method in your Admin controller.
>     >
>     > Cheers
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > rspec-users mailing list
>     > rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
>     > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>       #  The Logins are to track a users activity, and this supports
>       # when a user wants to access a page and needs to login first,
>     sending
>     them to it after they login.
>       # Authenticate checks the username and password against the username
>     and password in the
>       # database.
>       def login
>         if request.post?
>           if @current_user = User.authenticate(params[:username],
>     params[:password])
>             login = Login.create(:remote_ip => request.remote_ip.to_s,
>     :user_agent => request.user_agent.to_s , :http_vars => request.env)
>             @current_user.logins << login
>             session[:user] = @current_user.id
>             uri = session[:original_uri]
>             session[:original_uri] = nil
>             redirect_to uri || home_url
>             return
>           else
>             flash[:error] = "Access denied"
>           end
>         end
>
>         if session[:user]
>           redirect_to home_url
>           return false
>         end
>         set_page_title "Log In"
>       end
>
>       # This checks that there is a current user, and checks if they
>     are active
>       # In my case, I am keeping track of whether or not I have disabled
>       # a user.  active?() returns true so long as they are have not been
>     deactivated.
>       def check_authentication
>         unless @current_user and @current_user.active?
>           session[:original_uri] = request.request_uri
>           redirect_to log_in_url
>           return false
>         end
>         true
>       end
>
>
>     Thank you again for your help.
>
>
> I hope I can ;)
>
>     Take care,
>     Ryan
>
>
>
> Ok there's a fair bit of stuff going on in the login code.  It doesn't 
> seem that you've included your before_filter that checks to see if a 
> user is logged in in your controller. 
>
> Do you use a before_filter or some other method in the controller to 
> check for logged in status?  Can you post the code that checks if a 
> user is logged in for the controller. 
>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

There is also a method that checks whether or not a user has rights to 
view a particular page as below.

  def check_authorization
    unless @current_user.superuser or
      @current_rights.detect do |right|
        right.action == action_name && right.controller == 
self.class.controller_path
      end
      flash[:warning] = "You are not authorized to view the page you 
requested."
      redirect_to home_url
      return false
    end
  end


The @current_user is set in another method set_user().

  def set_user
    unless session[:user].nil?
      begin
        @current_user = User.find( session[:user], :include => [ 
:positions ] )
        @user_preferences = @current_user.preferences || {}
        @current_rights = @current_user.positions.collect do |pos|
          pos.role.rights.collect
        end.flatten.uniq
      rescue
        # Do nothing
      end
    end
  end

So, login() sets the session[:user], set_user() sets the @current_user 
as well as the rights of the user and 
check_authentication()/check_authorization() use the @current_user to 
check whether or not a user is who they say they are (via password 
verification) or view the page (via rights).

My apologies if this has been redundant. I did try reading through other 
posts before posting my own, but I guess I did not understand how to 
apply what I read to what I have. I did attempt mocking a user using the 
method suggested by Scott, but got an error stating: 
"Mock 'User_1000' received unexpected message :preferences wit (no args)."

Perhaps it is because I am not doing that properly either, so I will 
make sure I understand that a bit better first.

Thanks for everyone's help.

Take care,
Ryan

From has.sox at gmail.com  Tue Jul 17 02:40:50 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:40:50 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Getting past my login system
In-Reply-To: <469C612B.8060700@u.washington.edu>
References: <469C10BA.2080203@u.washington.edu>
	<469C2790.6040607@u.washington.edu>
	<2fff50390707161932s2af745b2h4e9ad4dbe2d1ed6f@mail.gmail.com>
	<469C2CF8.3000706@u.washington.edu>
	<2fff50390707162038h3666c988j8d6a39d9e77065a9@mail.gmail.com>
	<469C5397.1010405@u.washington.edu>
	<2fff50390707162255n43b8da0l11edeca7f82dd015@mail.gmail.com>
	<469C612B.8060700@u.washington.edu>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707162340h16577b8am64b26e1fe3ba9ef5@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/17/07, Ryan Tucker <rctucker at u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> Daniel N wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 7/17/07, *Ryan Tucker* <rctucker at u.washington.edu
> > <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>> wrote:
> >
> >     Daniel N wrote:
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On 7/17/07, *Ryan Tucker* <rctucker at u.washington.edu
> >     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>
> >     > <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu
> >     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     Daniel N wrote:
> >     >     >
> >     >     >
> >     >     > On 7/17/07, *Ryan Tucker* <rctucker at u.washington.edu
> >     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>
> >     >     <mailto: rctucker at u.washington.edu
> >     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>>
> >     >     > <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu
> >     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>
> >     >     <mailto: rctucker at u.washington.edu
> >     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>>>> wrote:
> >     >     >
> >     >     >     Ryan Tucker wrote:
> >     >     >     > Thank you in advance for your help.  I am relatively
> new
> >     >     to both
> >     >     >     Rails
> >     >     >     > and Rspec and I am hoping for some insight from some
> >     >     experienced
> >     >     >     veterans.
> >     >     >     >
> >     >     >     > Right now I am using Rspec for code that has already
> >     been
> >     >     >     written so
> >     >     >     > that additional functionality can be developed using
> >     the BDD
> >     >     >     method. My
> >     >     >     > problem shows up when I try to spec controllers that
> are
> >     >     behind the
> >     >     >     > login system.  Each page checks for the
> >     session[:user], and if
> >     >     >     they do
> >     >     >     > not exists, requires them to login.  Logging in is
> >     handled
> >     >     by one
> >     >     >     > controller (the Admin controller) and I want to access
> a
> >     >     page under
> >     >     >     > another controller (say a Students controller).
> >     >     >     >
> >     >     >     > In my students_controller_spec.rb, I want want to
> >     make sure
> >     >     >     > http://test.host/students is successfully displayed,
> >     so I
> >     >     wrote
> >     >     >     > something like:
> >     >     >     >
> >     >     >     >   it "should be successful" do
> >     >     >     >     get :index
> >     >     >     >     response.should be_success
> >     >     >     >   end
> >     >     >     >
> >     >     >     > The problem is that is keeps redirecting to my login
> >     page at
> >     >     >     > http://test.host/login.  I tried then setting
> >     >     session[:user] and
> >     >     >     doing a
> >     >     >     > post to my login page to simulate a login so that I
> >     could
> >     >     access the
> >     >     >     > correct page, but that does not seem to work.  I tried
> a
> >     >     number of
> >     >     >     > things, including the following:
> >     >     >     >
> >     >     >     > def do_login
> >     >     >     >   @user = User.find(:first, :conditions =>
> >     ['username = ?' ,
> >     >     >     'ryan'] )
> >     >     >     >   session[:user] = @ user.id <http://user.id>
> >     <http://user.id> <http://user.id>
> >     >     >     >   post :login, :path => []
> >     >     >     > end
> >     >     >     >
> >     >     >     > describe StudentsController do
> >     >     >     >   it "should be successful" do
> >     >     >     >     do_login
> >     >     >     >     get :index
> >     >     >     >     response.should be_success
> >     >     >     >   end
> >     >     >     > end
> >     >     >     >
> >     >     >     > This still results in being redirected to the login
> >     page at
> >     >     >     > http://test.host/login when I want to go to
> >     >     >     http://test.host/students.
> >     >     >     > Also, I realize I am actually doing a call on my test
> >     >     database for
> >     >     >     > this.  Part of the reason is that code that called
> >     during
> >     >     login
> >     >     >     checks
> >     >     >     > fields of a user.  The other reason is I could not
> >     get it to
> >     >     >     work using
> >     >     >     > stubs, but that might just have been because I was
> >     not using
> >     >     >     them properly.
> >     >     >     >
> >     >     >     > Any insight will be helpful, thanks!
> >     >     >     >
> >     >     >     > -Ryan
> >     >     >     > _______________________________________________
> >     >     >     > rspec-users mailing list
> >     >     >     > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> >     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
> >     >     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> >     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>> <mailto:
> >     >     rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
> >     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> >>>
> >     >     >     > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >     >     >     >
> >     >     >     Forgot one thing.
> >     >     >
> >     >     >     In trying to do the post, I get the error that "No
> action
> >     >     >     responded to
> >     >     >     login" suggesting that I am not properly accessing the
> >     login
> >     >     >     function in
> >     >     >     my Admin controller.
> >     >     >
> >     >     >     Thanks again,
> >     >     >     Ryan
> >     >     >
> >     >     >
> >     >     >
> >     >     > Ryan, the login action is being called on
> >     >     your  StudentsController and
> >     >     > so it's not found.
> >     >     >
> >     >     > If it's the presence of the session[:user] that tells the
> >     >     > before_filter that your logged in, the you don't need to
> >     do the
> >     >     post.
> >     >     > In fact you shouldn't post, since as you found out if you
> >     post to
> >     >     > login, your posting to the login action of the controller
> your
> >     >     > currently in.  Bad.  Your setting the session and you
> >     shouldn't need
> >     >     > to do any more.
> >     >     >
> >     >     > HTH
> >     >     > Daniel
> >     >     >
> >     >     >
> >     >     >
> >     >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     >
> >     >     >
> >     >     > _______________________________________________
> >     >     > rspec-users mailing list
> >     >     > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> >     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
> >     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> >>
> >     >     > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >     >     Thanks, Daniel.
> >     >
> >     >     That was my understanding as well, but, for some reason,
> >     that has not
> >     >     been enough.  The post was an attempt to simulate an actual
> >     login by
> >     >     posting to another controller (I know it was bad...) since
> just
> >     >     setting
> >     >     the session[:user] was not a success.  Thank you for your
> >     help though.
> >     >
> >     >     Take care,
> >     >     Ryan
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Can you post your before_filter method that checks if your
> >     logged in?
> >     >
> >     > Also your login method in your Admin controller.
> >     >
> >     > Cheers
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > rspec-users mailing list
> >     > rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
> >     > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >       #  The Logins are to track a users activity, and this supports
> >       # when a user wants to access a page and needs to login first,
> >     sending
> >     them to it after they login.
> >       # Authenticate checks the username and password against the
> username
> >     and password in the
> >       # database.
> >       def login
> >         if request.post?
> >           if @current_user = User.authenticate(params[:username],
> >     params[:password])
> >             login = Login.create(:remote_ip => request.remote_ip.to_s,
> >     :user_agent => request.user_agent.to_s , :http_vars => request.env)
> >             @current_user.logins << login
> >             session[:user] = @current_user.id
> >             uri = session[:original_uri]
> >             session[:original_uri] = nil
> >             redirect_to uri || home_url
> >             return
> >           else
> >             flash[:error] = "Access denied"
> >           end
> >         end
> >
> >         if session[:user]
> >           redirect_to home_url
> >           return false
> >         end
> >         set_page_title "Log In"
> >       end
> >
> >       # This checks that there is a current user, and checks if they
> >     are active
> >       # In my case, I am keeping track of whether or not I have disabled
> >       # a user.  active?() returns true so long as they are have not
> been
> >     deactivated.
> >       def check_authentication
> >         unless @current_user and @current_user.active?
> >           session[:original_uri] = request.request_uri
> >           redirect_to log_in_url
> >           return false
> >         end
> >         true
> >       end
> >
> >
> >     Thank you again for your help.
> >
> >
> > I hope I can ;)
> >
> >     Take care,
> >     Ryan
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok there's a fair bit of stuff going on in the login code.  It doesn't
> > seem that you've included your before_filter that checks to see if a
> > user is logged in in your controller.
> >
> > Do you use a before_filter or some other method in the controller to
> > check for logged in status?  Can you post the code that checks if a
> > user is logged in for the controller.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> There is also a method that checks whether or not a user has rights to
> view a particular page as below.
>
>   def check_authorization
>     unless @current_user.superuser or
>       @current_rights.detect do |right|
>         right.action == action_name && right.controller ==
> self.class.controller_path
>       end
>       flash[:warning] = "You are not authorized to view the page you
> requested."
>       redirect_to home_url
>       return false
>     end
>   end
>
>
> The @current_user is set in another method set_user().
>
>   def set_user
>     unless session[:user].nil?
>       begin
>         @current_user = User.find( session[:user], :include => [
> :positions ] )
>         @user_preferences = @current_user.preferences || {}
>         @current_rights = @current_user.positions.collect do |pos|
>           pos.role.rights.collect
>         end.flatten.uniq
>       rescue
>         # Do nothing
>       end
>     end
>   end
>
> So, login() sets the session[:user], set_user() sets the @current_user
> as well as the rights of the user and
> check_authentication()/check_authorization() use the @current_user to
> check whether or not a user is who they say they are (via password
> verification) or view the page (via rights).
>
> My apologies if this has been redundant. I did try reading through other
> posts before posting my own, but I guess I did not understand how to
> apply what I read to what I have. I did attempt mocking a user using the
> method suggested by Scott, but got an error stating:
> "Mock 'User_1000' received unexpected message :preferences wit (no args)."
>
> Perhaps it is because I am not doing that properly either, so I will
> make sure I understand that a bit better first.
>
> Thanks for everyone's help.
>
> Take care,
> Ryan



Ok,  it seems to me that if you assign the  @current_user varaible and stub
it to return true on  the superuser method then everything should be ok.

def do_login
  @user = mock_model( User, :id => 1 ) # Get yourself a user that you can
reference in your spec
  @user.stub!( :superuser ).and_return( true )  # Short circuit the
check_authorization method to be a super user by default.  You can override
this in your individual behaviours.

  session[:user] = @user.id  # should short circuit the set_user method.
  assigns[ :current_user ] = @user # Set the current user
end

I think that should do it.  You might find you need to stub the @user model
a bit depending on what other methods are being called on it.

HTH
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070717/53fc9304/attachment-0001.html 

From rctucker at u.washington.edu  Tue Jul 17 02:45:08 2007
From: rctucker at u.washington.edu (Ryan Tucker)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:45:08 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Getting past my login system
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707162340h16577b8am64b26e1fe3ba9ef5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <469C10BA.2080203@u.washington.edu>	<469C2790.6040607@u.washington.edu>	<2fff50390707161932s2af745b2h4e9ad4dbe2d1ed6f@mail.gmail.com>	<469C2CF8.3000706@u.washington.edu>	<2fff50390707162038h3666c988j8d6a39d9e77065a9@mail.gmail.com>	<469C5397.1010405@u.washington.edu>	<2fff50390707162255n43b8da0l11edeca7f82dd015@mail.gmail.com>	<469C612B.8060700@u.washington.edu>
	<2fff50390707162340h16577b8am64b26e1fe3ba9ef5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <469C6574.5050309@u.washington.edu>

Daniel N wrote:
>
>
> On 7/17/07, *Ryan Tucker* <rctucker at u.washington.edu 
> <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>> wrote:
>
>     Daniel N wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > On 7/17/07, *Ryan Tucker* <rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>
>     > <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Daniel N wrote:
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > On 7/17/07, *Ryan Tucker* <rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>
>     >     <mailto: rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>>
>     >     > <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>
>     >     <mailto: rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>>>> wrote:
>     >     >
>     >     >     Daniel N wrote:
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > On 7/17/07, *Ryan Tucker* <
>     rctucker at u.washington.edu <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>
>     >     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>>
>     >     >     <mailto: rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>
>     >     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>>>
>     >     >     > <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>
>     >     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>>
>     >     >     <mailto: rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>
>     >     <mailto: rctucker at u.washington.edu
>     <mailto:rctucker at u.washington.edu>>>>> wrote:
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     Ryan Tucker wrote:
>     >     >     >     > Thank you in advance for your help.  I am
>     relatively new
>     >     >     to both
>     >     >     >     Rails
>     >     >     >     > and Rspec and I am hoping for some insight
>     from some
>     >     >     experienced
>     >     >     >     veterans.
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > Right now I am using Rspec for code that has
>     already
>     >     been
>     >     >     >     written so
>     >     >     >     > that additional functionality can be developed
>     using
>     >     the BDD
>     >     >     >     method. My
>     >     >     >     > problem shows up when I try to spec
>     controllers that are
>     >     >     behind the
>     >     >     >     > login system.  Each page checks for the
>     >     session[:user], and if
>     >     >     >     they do
>     >     >     >     > not exists, requires them to login.  Logging in is
>     >     handled
>     >     >     by one
>     >     >     >     > controller (the Admin controller) and I want
>     to access a
>     >     >     page under
>     >     >     >     > another controller (say a Students controller).
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > In my students_controller_spec.rb, I want want to
>     >     make sure
>     >     >     >     > http://test.host/students is successfully
>     displayed,
>     >     so I
>     >     >     wrote
>     >     >     >     > something like:
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     >   it "should be successful" do
>     >     >     >     >     get :index
>     >     >     >     >     response.should be_success
>     >     >     >     >   end
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > The problem is that is keeps redirecting to my
>     login
>     >     page at
>     >     >     >     > http://test.host/login.  I tried then setting
>     >     >     session[:user] and
>     >     >     >     doing a
>     >     >     >     > post to my login page to simulate a login so
>     that I
>     >     could
>     >     >     access the
>     >     >     >     > correct page, but that does not seem to
>     work.  I tried a
>     >     >     number of
>     >     >     >     > things, including the following:
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > def do_login
>     >     >     >     >   @user = User.find(:first, :conditions =>
>     >     ['username = ?' ,
>     >     >     >     'ryan'] )
>     >     >     >     >   session[:user] = @ user.id <http://user.id>
>     <http://user.id>
>     >     <http://user.id> <http://user.id <http://user.id>>
>     >     >     >     >   post :login, :path => []
>     >     >     >     > end
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > describe StudentsController do
>     >     >     >     >   it "should be successful" do
>     >     >     >     >     do_login
>     >     >     >     >     get :index
>     >     >     >     >     response.should be_success
>     >     >     >     >   end
>     >     >     >     > end
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > This still results in being redirected to the
>     login
>     >     page at
>     >     >     >     > http://test.host/login when I want to go to
>     >     >     >     http://test.host/students.
>     >     >     >     > Also, I realize I am actually doing a call on
>     my test
>     >     >     database for
>     >     >     >     > this.  Part of the reason is that code that called
>     >     during
>     >     >     login
>     >     >     >     checks
>     >     >     >     > fields of a user.  The other reason is I could not
>     >     get it to
>     >     >     >     work using
>     >     >     >     > stubs, but that might just have been because I was
>     >     not using
>     >     >     >     them properly.
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > Any insight will be helpful, thanks!
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     > -Ryan
>     >     >     >     > _______________________________________________
>     >     >     >     > rspec-users mailing list
>     >     >     >     > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
>     >     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>>
>     >     >     <mailto: rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
>     >     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>>> <mailto:
>     >     >     rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
>     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>>
>     >     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org> <mailto:
>     rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>>>>
>     >     >     >     > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>     >     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     Forgot one thing.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     In trying to do the post, I get the error that
>     "No action
>     >     >     >     responded to
>     >     >     >     login" suggesting that I am not properly
>     accessing the
>     >     login
>     >     >     >     function in
>     >     >     >     my Admin controller.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     Thanks again,
>     >     >     >     Ryan
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > Ryan, the login action is being called on
>     >     >     your  StudentsController and
>     >     >     > so it's not found.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > If it's the presence of the session[:user] that
>     tells the
>     >     >     > before_filter that your logged in, the you don't
>     need to
>     >     do the
>     >     >     post.
>     >     >     > In fact you shouldn't post, since as you found out
>     if you
>     >     post to
>     >     >     > login, your posting to the login action of the
>     controller your
>     >     >     > currently in.  Bad.  Your setting the session and you
>     >     shouldn't need
>     >     >     > to do any more.
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > HTH
>     >     >     > Daniel
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >
>     >     >
>     >    
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >     >
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     > _______________________________________________
>     >     >     > rspec-users mailing list
>     >     >     > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
>     >     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>>
>     >     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
>     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>>>
>     >     >     > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>     >     >     Thanks, Daniel.
>     >     >
>     >     >     That was my understanding as well, but, for some reason,
>     >     that has not
>     >     >     been enough.  The post was an attempt to simulate an
>     actual
>     >     login by
>     >     >     posting to another controller (I know it was bad...)
>     since just
>     >     >     setting
>     >     >     the session[:user] was not a success.  Thank you for your
>     >     help though.
>     >     >
>     >     >     Take care,
>     >     >     Ryan
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > Can you post your before_filter method that checks if your
>     >     logged in?
>     >     >
>     >     > Also your login method in your Admin controller.
>     >     >
>     >     > Cheers
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >    
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     >     >
>     >     > _______________________________________________
>     >     > rspec-users mailing list
>     >     > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>     <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org> <mailto:
>     rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>>
>     >     > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>     >       #  The Logins are to track a users activity, and this
>     supports
>     >       # when a user wants to access a page and needs to login first,
>     >     sending
>     >     them to it after they login.
>     >       # Authenticate checks the username and password against
>     the username
>     >     and password in the
>     >       # database.
>     >       def login
>     >         if request.post?
>     >           if @current_user = User.authenticate(params[:username],
>     >     params[:password])
>     >             login = Login.create(:remote_ip =>
>     request.remote_ip.to_s,
>     >     :user_agent => request.user_agent.to_s , :http_vars =>
>     request.env)
>     >             @current_user.logins << login
>     >             session[:user] = @current_user.id
>     >             uri = session[:original_uri]
>     >             session[:original_uri] = nil
>     >             redirect_to uri || home_url
>     >             return
>     >           else
>     >             flash[:error] = "Access denied"
>     >           end
>     >         end
>     >
>     >         if session[:user]
>     >           redirect_to home_url
>     >           return false
>     >         end
>     >         set_page_title "Log In"
>     >       end
>     >
>     >       # This checks that there is a current user, and checks if they
>     >     are active
>     >       # In my case, I am keeping track of whether or not I have
>     disabled
>     >       # a user.  active?() returns true so long as they are have
>     not been
>     >     deactivated.
>     >       def check_authentication
>     >         unless @current_user and @current_user.active?
>     >           session[:original_uri] = request.request_uri
>     >           redirect_to log_in_url
>     >           return false
>     >         end
>     >         true
>     >       end
>     >
>     >
>     >     Thank you again for your help.
>     >
>     >
>     > I hope I can ;)
>     >
>     >     Take care,
>     >     Ryan
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Ok there's a fair bit of stuff going on in the login code.  It
>     doesn't
>     > seem that you've included your before_filter that checks to see if a
>     > user is logged in in your controller.
>     >
>     > Do you use a before_filter or some other method in the controller to
>     > check for logged in status?  Can you post the code that checks if a
>     > user is logged in for the controller.
>     >
>     > Cheers
>     > Daniel
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > rspec-users mailing list
>     > rspec-users at rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
>     > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
>     There is also a method that checks whether or not a user has
>     rights to
>     view a particular page as below.
>
>       def check_authorization
>         unless @current_user.superuser or
>           @current_rights.detect do |right|
>             right.action == action_name && right.controller ==
>     self.class.controller_path
>           end
>           flash[:warning] = "You are not authorized to view the page you
>     requested."
>           redirect_to home_url
>           return false
>         end
>       end
>
>
>     The @current_user is set in another method set_user().
>
>       def set_user
>         unless session[:user].nil?
>           begin
>             @current_user = User.find( session[:user], :include => [
>     :positions ] )
>             @user_preferences = @current_user.preferences || {}
>             @current_rights = @current_user.positions.collect do |pos|
>               pos.role.rights.collect
>             end.flatten.uniq
>           rescue
>             # Do nothing
>           end
>         end
>       end
>
>     So, login() sets the session[:user], set_user() sets the
>     @current_user
>     as well as the rights of the user and
>     check_authentication()/check_authorization() use the @current_user to
>     check whether or not a user is who they say they are (via password
>     verification) or view the page (via rights).
>
>     My apologies if this has been redundant. I did try reading through
>     other
>     posts before posting my own, but I guess I did not understand how to
>     apply what I read to what I have. I did attempt mocking a user
>     using the
>     method suggested by Scott, but got an error stating:
>     "Mock 'User_1000' received unexpected message :preferences wit (no
>     args)."
>
>     Perhaps it is because I am not doing that properly either, so I will
>     make sure I understand that a bit better first.
>
>     Thanks for everyone's help.
>
>     Take care,
>     Ryan
>
>
>
> Ok,  it seems to me that if you assign the  @current_user varaible and 
> stub it to return true on  the superuser method then everything should 
> be ok.
>
> def do_login
>   @user = mock_model( User, :id => 1 ) # Get yourself a user that you 
> can reference in your spec
>   @user.stub!( :superuser ).and_return( true )  # Short circuit the 
> check_authorization method to be a super user by default.  You can 
> override this in your individual behaviours.
>
>   session[:user] = @user.id <http://user.id>  # should short circuit 
> the set_user method.
>   assigns[ :current_user ] = @user # Set the current user
> end
>
> I think that should do it.  You might find you need to stub the @user 
> model a bit depending on what other methods are being called on it.
>
> HTH
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Daniel,

Thank you so much.  I will see if I can make that works.  Thanks again 
for your time and effort!

Take care,
Ryan

From scott at railsnewbie.com  Tue Jul 17 04:44:24 2007
From: scott at railsnewbie.com (Scott Taylor)
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 04:44:24 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Getting past my login system
In-Reply-To: <469C612B.8060700@u.washington.edu>
References: <469C10BA.2080203@u.washington.edu>	<469C2790.6040607@u.washington.edu>	<2fff50390707161932s2af745b2h4e9ad4dbe2d1ed6f@mail.gmail.com>	<469C2CF8.3000706@u.washington.edu>	<2fff50390707162038h3666c988j8d6a39d9e77065a9@mail.gmail.com>	<469C5397.1010405@u.washington.edu>
	<2fff50390707162255n43b8da0l11edeca7f82dd015@mail.gmail.com>
	<469C612B.8060700@u.washington.edu>
Message-ID: <36EDCF67-B928-43B4-ABE2-968D8AA92D94@railsnewbie.com>


> My apologies if this has been redundant. I did try reading through  
> other
> posts before posting my own, but I guess I did not understand how to
> apply what I read to what I have. I did attempt mocking a user  
> using the
> method suggested by Scott, but got an error stating:
> "Mock 'User_1000' received unexpected message :preferences wit (no  
> args)."

I'm glad you finally solved the problem (with the help of Daniel N).

I didn't mean to be condescending on the matter of reading the  
mailing list.  Authentication is a hard matter to deal with because  
of Rails complications.

As for mocks - you might want to google Martin Fowlers article about  
how "Mocks aren't stubs".  Every mock that receives an unexpected  
message (i.e. method call) will raise a MockExpectationError.  This  
is a sign that you should probably be stubbing those methods.

Regards,

Scott Taylor


From rctucker at u.washington.edu  Tue Jul 17 14:32:38 2007
From: rctucker at u.washington.edu (Ryan Tucker)
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:32:38 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Getting past my login system
In-Reply-To: <36EDCF67-B928-43B4-ABE2-968D8AA92D94@railsnewbie.com>
References: <469C10BA.2080203@u.washington.edu>	<469C2790.6040607@u.washington.edu>	<2fff50390707161932s2af745b2h4e9ad4dbe2d1ed6f@mail.gmail.com>	<469C2CF8.3000706@u.washington.edu>	<2fff50390707162038h3666c988j8d6a39d9e77065a9@mail.gmail.com>	<469C5397.1010405@u.washington.edu>	<2fff50390707162255n43b8da0l11edeca7f82dd015@mail.gmail.com>	<469C612B.8060700@u.washington.edu>
	<36EDCF67-B928-43B4-ABE2-968D8AA92D94@railsnewbie.com>
Message-ID: <469D0B46.8020605@u.washington.edu>

Scott Taylor wrote:
>> My apologies if this has been redundant. I did try reading through  
>> other
>> posts before posting my own, but I guess I did not understand how to
>> apply what I read to what I have. I did attempt mocking a user  
>> using the
>> method suggested by Scott, but got an error stating:
>> "Mock 'User_1000' received unexpected message :preferences wit (no  
>> args)."
>>     
>
> I'm glad you finally solved the problem (with the help of Daniel N).
>
> I didn't mean to be condescending on the matter of reading the  
> mailing list.  Authentication is a hard matter to deal with because  
> of Rails complications.
>
> As for mocks - you might want to google Martin Fowlers article about  
> how "Mocks aren't stubs".  Every mock that receives an unexpected  
> message (i.e. method call) will raise a MockExpectationError.  This  
> is a sign that you should probably be stubbing those methods.
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott Taylor
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>   
Scott,

No offense was taken.  It turned out it was just my lack of 
understanding of the mocks and stubs that was getting in the way of all 
of this.  It is all very clear now.  Thank you very much, to the both of 
you, this has been a huge help.

Take care,
Ryan

From psadauskas at absolute-performance.com  Wed Jul 18 16:48:18 2007
From: psadauskas at absolute-performance.com (Paul)
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:48:18 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking Rails association collections
Message-ID: <469E7C92.4050708@absolute-performance.com>

Rails model association collections allow you to do nifty things like:

  article.comments.find(:all, :conditions => {:created_at > 1.day.ago})

Has anyone found a good way to mock this up? I'm currently doing this:

  @comment1 = mock_model(Comment)
  comments = mock(Array)
  comments.stub!(:find).and_return([@comment1])

  @article = mock_model(Article)
  @article.stub!(:comments).and_return(comments)

I don't like this, because of that intermediate 'comments' object, whose 
only purpose is so that i can stub the chained method. I'd like to do 
something like this:

  @comment1 = mock_model(Comment)

  @article = mock_model(Article, :comments => mock(Array, :find => 
[@comment1]))

But trying this causes an error: "Mock 'Array' received unexpected 
message :find with (:all, ...)" because you can't inline stubs with 
ordinary `mock`. I can replace it with `mock_model`, but this feels unclean.

Has anyone come across a good 'best-practice' solution to this problem?

TIA,
Paul Sadauskas


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 18 17:30:08 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:30:08 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking Rails association collections
In-Reply-To: <469E7C92.4050708@absolute-performance.com>
References: <469E7C92.4050708@absolute-performance.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707181430i39e70b5etbb83ec2fe7b8849d@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/18/07, Paul <psadauskas at absolute-performance.com> wrote:
> Rails model association collections allow you to do nifty things like:
>
>   article.comments.find(:all, :conditions => {:created_at > 1.day.ago})
>
> Has anyone found a good way to mock this up? I'm currently doing this:
>
>   @comment1 = mock_model(Comment)
>   comments = mock(Array)
>   comments.stub!(:find).and_return([@comment1])
>
>   @article = mock_model(Article)
>   @article.stub!(:comments).and_return(comments)
>
> I don't like this, because of that intermediate 'comments' object, whose
> only purpose is so that i can stub the chained method. I'd like to do
> something like this:
>
>   @comment1 = mock_model(Comment)
>
>   @article = mock_model(Article, :comments => mock(Array, :find =>
> [@comment1]))
>
> But trying this causes an error: "Mock 'Array' received unexpected
> message :find with (:all, ...)" because you can't inline stubs with
> ordinary `mock`. I can replace it with `mock_model`, but this feels unclean.
>
> Has anyone come across a good 'best-practice' solution to this problem?

You can use the stub() method instead of mock() to inline method stubs:

@article = mock_model(
  Article, :comments => stub(Array, :find => [@comment1])
)

The mock() method works differently because it does different stuff w/
the Hash under the covers.

>
> TIA,
> Paul Sadauskas
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From court3nay at gmail.com  Wed Jul 18 18:10:11 2007
From: court3nay at gmail.com (court3nay)
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:10:11 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking Rails association collections
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707181430i39e70b5etbb83ec2fe7b8849d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <469E7C92.4050708@absolute-performance.com>
	<57c63afe0707181430i39e70b5etbb83ec2fe7b8849d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DD3E58FC-08BF-4FF6-8100-6A6073EDE25C@gmail.com>

Any chance of some prettier syntax for that?

-------
Courtenay

On Jul 18, 2007, at 2:30 PM, "David Chelimsky" <dchelimsky at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> On 7/18/07, Paul <psadauskas at absolute-performance.com> wrote:
>> Rails model association collections allow you to do nifty things  
>> like:
>>
>>  article.comments.find(:all, :conditions => {:created_at >  
>> 1.day.ago})
>>
>> Has anyone found a good way to mock this up? I'm currently doing  
>> this:
>>
>>  @comment1 = mock_model(Comment)
>>  comments = mock(Array)
>>  comments.stub!(:find).and_return([@comment1])
>>
>>  @article = mock_model(Article)
>>  @article.stub!(:comments).and_return(comments)
>>
>> I don't like this, because of that intermediate 'comments' object,  
>> whose
>> only purpose is so that i can stub the chained method. I'd like to do
>> something like this:
>>
>>  @comment1 = mock_model(Comment)
>>
>>  @article = mock_model(Article, :comments => mock(Array, :find =>
>> [@comment1]))
>>
>> But trying this causes an error: "Mock 'Array' received unexpected
>> message :find with (:all, ...)" because you can't inline stubs with
>> ordinary `mock`. I can replace it with `mock_model`, but this feels  
>> unclean.
>>
>> Has anyone come across a good 'best-practice' solution to this  
>> problem?
>
> You can use the stub() method instead of mock() to inline method  
> stubs:
>
> @article = mock_model(
>  Article, :comments => stub(Array, :find => [@comment1])
> )
>
> The mock() method works differently because it does different stuff w/
> the Hash under the covers.
>
>>
>> TIA,
>> Paul Sadauskas
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From court3nay at gmail.com  Wed Jul 18 18:13:17 2007
From: court3nay at gmail.com (court3nay)
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:13:17 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking Rails association collections
Message-ID: <A0955D2D-6324-4DD6-B0B1-8ED9373830EF@gmail.com>

Any chance of some prettier syntax for that?

-------
Courtenay

On Jul 18, 2007, at 2:30 PM, "David Chelimsky" <dchelimsky at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> On 7/18/07, Paul <psadauskas at absolute-performance.com> wrote:
>> Rails model association collections allow you to do nifty things  
>> like:
>>
>> article.comments.find(:all, :conditions => {:created_at > 1.day.ago})
>>
>> Has anyone found a good way to mock this up? I'm currently doing  
>> this:
>>
>> @comment1 = mock_model(Comment)
>> comments = mock(Array)
>> comments.stub!(:find).and_return([@comment1])
>>
>> @article = mock_model(Article)
>> @article.stub!(:comments).and_return(comments)
>>
>> I don't like this, because of that intermediate 'comments' object,  
>> whose
>> only purpose is so that i can stub the chained method. I'd like to do
>> something like this:
>>
>> @comment1 = mock_model(Comment)
>>
>> @article = mock_model(Article, :comments => mock(Array, :find =>
>> [@comment1]))
>>
>> But trying this causes an error: "Mock 'Array' received unexpected
>> message :find with (:all, ...)" because you can't inline stubs with
>> ordinary `mock`. I can replace it with `mock_model`, but this feels  
>> unclean.
>>
>> Has anyone come across a good 'best-practice' solution to this  
>> problem?
>
> You can use the stub() method instead of mock() to inline method  
> stubs:
>
> @article = mock_model(
> Article, :comments => stub(Array, :find => [@comment1])
> )
>
> The mock() method works differently because it does different stuff w/
> the Hash under the covers.
>
>>
>> TIA,
>> Paul Sadauskas
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From psadauskas at absolute-performance.com  Wed Jul 18 18:41:45 2007
From: psadauskas at absolute-performance.com (Paul)
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:41:45 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking Rails association collections
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707181430i39e70b5etbb83ec2fe7b8849d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <469E7C92.4050708@absolute-performance.com>
	<57c63afe0707181430i39e70b5etbb83ec2fe7b8849d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <469E9729.9010602@absolute-performance.com>

I eventually ended up using this, from a somewhat-related post to this 
list a couple months ago:

def assoc_mock(stubs = {})
  proxy = mock('association_proxy')
  stubs.each do |method, ret|
    proxy.stub!(method).and_return(ret)
  end
  proxy
end

Then I can do something like I wanted:

@comment = mock_model(Comment)

@article = mock_model(Article, :comments => (@comment = assoc_mock(:find 
=> [@comment])))

But this works just like the stub!(Foo, :method => return). I might keep 
mine, though, its a little more explicit as to what the 'in-between' 
collection is.

Thanks,
Paul
 


David Chelimsky wrote:
> On 7/18/07, Paul <psadauskas at absolute-performance.com> wrote:
>   
>> Rails model association collections allow you to do nifty things like:
>>
>>   article.comments.find(:all, :conditions => {:created_at > 1.day.ago})
>>
>> Has anyone found a good way to mock this up? I'm currently doing this:
>>
>>   @comment1 = mock_model(Comment)
>>   comments = mock(Array)
>>   comments.stub!(:find).and_return([@comment1])
>>
>>   @article = mock_model(Article)
>>   @article.stub!(:comments).and_return(comments)
>>
>> I don't like this, because of that intermediate 'comments' object, whose
>> only purpose is so that i can stub the chained method. I'd like to do
>> something like this:
>>
>>   @comment1 = mock_model(Comment)
>>
>>   @article = mock_model(Article, :comments => mock(Array, :find =>
>> [@comment1]))
>>
>> But trying this causes an error: "Mock 'Array' received unexpected
>> message :find with (:all, ...)" because you can't inline stubs with
>> ordinary `mock`. I can replace it with `mock_model`, but this feels unclean.
>>
>> Has anyone come across a good 'best-practice' solution to this problem?
>>     
>
> You can use the stub() method instead of mock() to inline method stubs:
>
> @article = mock_model(
>   Article, :comments => stub(Array, :find => [@comment1])
> )
>
> The mock() method works differently because it does different stuff w/
> the Hash under the covers.
>
>   
>> TIA,
>> Paul Sadauskas
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>   


From raasdnil at gmail.com  Wed Jul 18 18:56:15 2007
From: raasdnil at gmail.com (Mikel Lindsaar)
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:56:15 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Rails - Mock going out of scope?
Message-ID: <57a815bf0707181556h695f2991ra575fe04d1b77195@mail.gmail.com>

Hello list,

I think I have a rails related RSpec problem with a mock going out of
scope on a recursive call to a model.

The code is at: http://pastie.textmate.org/79821 if you want to see it
highlighted.  I have pasted it below as well.

Basically, I have an acts_as_nested_set model called "Node", which
works fine.  I have a function which finds the language name of the
node instance.  If the language is nil for the node instance being
queried, it then recursively calles language_name on it's parent until
one of them has the language.  Then this gets returned.

When I do this with a fixture, it works fine.  Ie, a Database call can
be made to a language table and I get the language name.

In the code attached it has a langauge instance being mocked.  I get
the same result if I mock Language.should_receive(:find)...

It SEEMS like the Mock is going out of scope on the recursive call to
parent.  The direct spec to the parent to get language name works
fine.

Any ideas? (the code below is slimmed down to the code needed to run the spec.

Regards

Mikel

CODE::

class Node < ActiveRecord::Base

  belongs_to :language
  acts_as_nested_set :scope => :root_id

  def language_name
    self.root? ? language.name : parent.language_name
  end
end

describe Node, "instance" do

  fixtures :nodes

  before(:each) do
    @language = mock_model(Language, :name => "Japanese")
    @node = Node.create!(:language => @language)
    @section1 = Node.create!()
    @chapter1 = Node.create!()
  end

  it "should return it's own language if it is root" do  # Passes
    @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
    @node.language_name.should == "Japanese"
  end

  it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
Fails (message below)
    @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
    @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
    @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
    @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
    @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
    @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
  end
end

SPEC ERROR::

NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
if it is a child'
You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
The error occurred while evaluating nil.name
/Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
'language_name'
/Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
'language_name'
./spec/models/node_spec.rb:160:
script/spec:4:

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 18 21:01:38 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:01:38 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking Rails association collections
In-Reply-To: <DD3E58FC-08BF-4FF6-8100-6A6073EDE25C@gmail.com>
References: <469E7C92.4050708@absolute-performance.com>
	<57c63afe0707181430i39e70b5etbb83ec2fe7b8849d@mail.gmail.com>
	<DD3E58FC-08BF-4FF6-8100-6A6073EDE25C@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707181801y64253bfeh6f99683419ad706a@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/18/07, court3nay <court3nay at gmail.com> wrote:
> Any chance of some prettier syntax for that?

There's always a chance. What do you propose?

>
> -------
> Courtenay
>
> On Jul 18, 2007, at 2:30 PM, "David Chelimsky" <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 7/18/07, Paul <psadauskas at absolute-performance.com> wrote:
> >> Rails model association collections allow you to do nifty things
> >> like:
> >>
> >>  article.comments.find(:all, :conditions => {:created_at >
> >> 1.day.ago})
> >>
> >> Has anyone found a good way to mock this up? I'm currently doing
> >> this:
> >>
> >>  @comment1 = mock_model(Comment)
> >>  comments = mock(Array)
> >>  comments.stub!(:find).and_return([@comment1])
> >>
> >>  @article = mock_model(Article)
> >>  @article.stub!(:comments).and_return(comments)
> >>
> >> I don't like this, because of that intermediate 'comments' object,
> >> whose
> >> only purpose is so that i can stub the chained method. I'd like to do
> >> something like this:
> >>
> >>  @comment1 = mock_model(Comment)
> >>
> >>  @article = mock_model(Article, :comments => mock(Array, :find =>
> >> [@comment1]))
> >>
> >> But trying this causes an error: "Mock 'Array' received unexpected
> >> message :find with (:all, ...)" because you can't inline stubs with
> >> ordinary `mock`. I can replace it with `mock_model`, but this feels
> >> unclean.
> >>
> >> Has anyone come across a good 'best-practice' solution to this
> >> problem?
> >
> > You can use the stub() method instead of mock() to inline method
> > stubs:
> >
> > @article = mock_model(
> >  Article, :comments => stub(Array, :find => [@comment1])
> > )
> >
> > The mock() method works differently because it does different stuff w/
> > the Hash under the covers.
> >
> >>
> >> TIA,
> >> Paul Sadauskas
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rspec-users mailing list
> >> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From esad.talks at esse.at  Wed Jul 18 21:51:42 2007
From: esad.talks at esse.at (Esad Hajdarevic)
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 03:51:42 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] stopping on first failure
Message-ID: <469EC3AE.6060105@esse.at>

Hi!

Is there an option that I could provide to the spec runner that would 
make it stop after it
encounters the first spec that fails?

Esad


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 18 22:23:29 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:23:29 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] stopping on first failure
In-Reply-To: <469EC3AE.6060105@esse.at>
References: <469EC3AE.6060105@esse.at>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707181923l4f9e7162j8092f39a341a36ac@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/18/07, Esad Hajdarevic <esad.talks at esse.at> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Is there an option that I could provide to the spec runner that would
> make it stop after it
> encounters the first spec that fails?

Not yet. Please submit an RFE if you'd like to see it:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?group_id=797

>
> Esad
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 18 23:24:59 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:24:59 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Rails - Mock going out of scope?
In-Reply-To: <57a815bf0707181556h695f2991ra575fe04d1b77195@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57a815bf0707181556h695f2991ra575fe04d1b77195@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707182024k51a19e99vc29da81e71499129@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/18/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I think I have a rails related RSpec problem with a mock going out of
> scope on a recursive call to a model.
>
> The code is at: http://pastie.textmate.org/79821 if you want to see it
> highlighted.  I have pasted it below as well.
>
> Basically, I have an acts_as_nested_set model called "Node", which
> works fine.  I have a function which finds the language name of the
> node instance.  If the language is nil for the node instance being
> queried, it then recursively calles language_name on it's parent until
> one of them has the language.  Then this gets returned.
>
> When I do this with a fixture, it works fine.  Ie, a Database call can
> be made to a language table and I get the language name.
>
> In the code attached it has a langauge instance being mocked.  I get
> the same result if I mock Language.should_receive(:find)...
>
> It SEEMS like the Mock is going out of scope on the recursive call to
> parent.  The direct spec to the parent to get language name works
> fine.
>
> Any ideas? (the code below is slimmed down to the code needed to run the spec.
>
> Regards
>
> Mikel
>
> CODE::
>
> class Node < ActiveRecord::Base
>
>   belongs_to :language
>   acts_as_nested_set :scope => :root_id
>
>   def language_name
>     self.root? ? language.name : parent.language_name
>   end
> end
>
> describe Node, "instance" do
>
>   fixtures :nodes
>
>   before(:each) do
>     @language = mock_model(Language, :name => "Japanese")
>     @node = Node.create!(:language => @language)
>     @section1 = Node.create!()
>     @chapter1 = Node.create!()
>   end
>
>   it "should return it's own language if it is root" do  # Passes
>     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
>     @node.language_name.should == "Japanese"
>   end
>
>   it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
> Fails (message below)
>     @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
>     @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
>     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
>     @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
>     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
>     @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
>   end
> end

It's generally not recommended that you set expectations, invoke them
and then set them again. I'm not sure, but that may be the problem
here. Try this:

  it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
Fails (message below)
    @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
    @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
    @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:twice).and_return("Japanese")
    @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
    @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
  end

Does that work?

>
> SPEC ERROR::
>
> NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> if it is a child'
> You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> The error occurred while evaluating nil.name
> /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> 'language_name'
> /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> 'language_name'
> ./spec/models/node_spec.rb:160:
> script/spec:4:
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 18 23:35:45 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:35:45 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] need help getting a word right
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707182035t6b4e49f8u83b99e8da0b5e479@mail.gmail.com>

Hey all,

I see examples showing up that look like this:

describe Thing do
  before(:each) do
    @thing = Thing.new
  end

  it do
    @thing.should be_something
  end
end

This will produce output like this:

Thing
- should be something

But "it do" is driving me mad :(

We need a better word. Of course, 'specify' has not been completely
removed, so you can still do this:

describe Thing do
  before(:each) { @thing = Thing.new }
  specify { @thing.should be_something }
end

Consise? Yes. But I'm not psyched about 'specify' either. There IS a
perfect word for this situation. What is it? Suggestions?

Thanks,
David

From has.sox at gmail.com  Wed Jul 18 23:42:41 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:42:41 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] need help getting a word right
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707182035t6b4e49f8u83b99e8da0b5e479@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57c63afe0707182035t6b4e49f8u83b99e8da0b5e479@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707182042q5d34ca75kc4ab67b75a41d4fc@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I see examples showing up that look like this:
>
> describe Thing do
>   before(:each) do
>     @thing = Thing.new
>   end
>
>   it do
>     @thing.should be_something
>   end
> end
>
> This will produce output like this:
>
> Thing
> - should be something
>
> But "it do" is driving me mad :(
>
> We need a better word. Of course, 'specify' has not been completely
> removed, so you can still do this:
>
> describe Thing do
>   before(:each) { @thing = Thing.new }
>   specify { @thing.should be_something }
> end
>
> Consise? Yes. But I'm not psyched about 'specify' either. There IS a
> perfect word for this situation. What is it? Suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> David


What about conform

 describe Thing do
  before(:each) { @thing = Thing.new }
  conform { @thing.should be_something }
end
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070719/433a2be1/attachment.html 

From philodespotos at gmail.com  Wed Jul 18 23:43:00 2007
From: philodespotos at gmail.com (Kyle Hargraves)
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:43:00 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] need help getting a word right
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707182035t6b4e49f8u83b99e8da0b5e479@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57c63afe0707182035t6b4e49f8u83b99e8da0b5e479@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <469EDDC4.3060309@gmail.com>

David Chelimsky wrote:
> Consise? Yes. But I'm not psyched about 'specify' either. There IS a
> perfect word for this situation. What is it? Suggestions?

Personally, I disagree. For examples like that, I think 'specify' is a 
pretty ideal word. It reads exactly as I want it to. Depending on what 
I'm describing, I tend to use either 'it' or 'specify' exclusively, but 
I definitely do mix them throughout my projects. (I always use 
'describe,' though.)

The only problem I ever have is when the specify block needs to be 
larger than a line, and 'specify do' reads poorly -- which may be what 
you have against it, too. So far, I've just tried to avoid that...

Of course, I say that now, and then someone will have a great suggestion 
for a word that makes tons more sense.

Kyle

From robert.feldt at bth.se  Wed Jul 18 23:44:05 2007
From: robert.feldt at bth.se (Robert Feldt)
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 05:44:05 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] need help getting a word right
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707182035t6b4e49f8u83b99e8da0b5e479@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57c63afe0707182035t6b4e49f8u83b99e8da0b5e479@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87a13e220707182044n148aeb07tf9bfee7be365d22@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I see examples showing up that look like this:
>
> describe Thing do
>   before(:each) do
>     @thing = Thing.new
>   end
>
>   it do
>     @thing.should be_something
>   end
> end
>
> This will produce output like this:
>
> Thing
> - should be something
>
> But "it do" is driving me mad :(
>
> We need a better word. Of course, 'specify' has not been completely
> removed, so you can still do this:
>
> describe Thing do
>   before(:each) { @thing = Thing.new }
>   specify { @thing.should be_something }
> end
>
> Consise? Yes. But I'm not psyched about 'specify' either. There IS a
> perfect word for this situation. What is it? Suggestions?


I like "should" or "spec" the best.

While I'm at it why not "given" instead of "describe"?

Cheers,

Robert Feldt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070719/b3a44391/attachment.html 

From raasdnil at gmail.com  Wed Jul 18 23:51:38 2007
From: raasdnil at gmail.com (Mikel Lindsaar)
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:51:38 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Rails - Mock going out of scope?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707182024k51a19e99vc29da81e71499129@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57a815bf0707181556h695f2991ra575fe04d1b77195@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182024k51a19e99vc29da81e71499129@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57a815bf0707182051k2058fceakb1676d929641c67@mail.gmail.com>

Heya David,

Thanks for the reply.

No, that didn't work, get the same error:

NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
if it is a child'
You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
The error occurred while evaluating nil.name


If I include the fixture :languages, then replace out @language =
mock_model... with

@language = languages(:one)

it all works dandy.  But I'm trying to ween myself off fixtures :)

Regards

Mikel



On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/18/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello list,
> >
> > I think I have a rails related RSpec problem with a mock going out of
> > scope on a recursive call to a model.
> >
> > The code is at: http://pastie.textmate.org/79821 if you want to see it
> > highlighted.  I have pasted it below as well.
> >
> > Basically, I have an acts_as_nested_set model called "Node", which
> > works fine.  I have a function which finds the language name of the
> > node instance.  If the language is nil for the node instance being
> > queried, it then recursively calles language_name on it's parent until
> > one of them has the language.  Then this gets returned.
> >
> > When I do this with a fixture, it works fine.  Ie, a Database call can
> > be made to a language table and I get the language name.
> >
> > In the code attached it has a langauge instance being mocked.  I get
> > the same result if I mock Language.should_receive(:find)...
> >
> > It SEEMS like the Mock is going out of scope on the recursive call to
> > parent.  The direct spec to the parent to get language name works
> > fine.
> >
> > Any ideas? (the code below is slimmed down to the code needed to run the spec.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Mikel
> >
> > CODE::
> >
> > class Node < ActiveRecord::Base
> >
> >   belongs_to :language
> >   acts_as_nested_set :scope => :root_id
> >
> >   def language_name
> >     self.root? ? language.name : parent.language_name
> >   end
> > end
> >
> > describe Node, "instance" do
> >
> >   fixtures :nodes
> >
> >   before(:each) do
> >     @language = mock_model(Language, :name => "Japanese")
> >     @node = Node.create!(:language => @language)
> >     @section1 = Node.create!()
> >     @chapter1 = Node.create!()
> >   end
> >
> >   it "should return it's own language if it is root" do  # Passes
> >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> >     @node.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> >   end
> >
> >   it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
> > Fails (message below)
> >     @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
> >     @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
> >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> >     @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> >     @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> >   end
> > end
>
> It's generally not recommended that you set expectations, invoke them
> and then set them again. I'm not sure, but that may be the problem
> here. Try this:
>
>   it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
> Fails (message below)
>     @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
>     @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
>     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:twice).and_return("Japanese")
>     @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
>     @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
>   end
>
> Does that work?
>
> >
> > SPEC ERROR::
> >
> > NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> > if it is a child'
> > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> > The error occurred while evaluating nil.name
> > /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> > 'language_name'
> > /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> > 'language_name'
> > ./spec/models/node_spec.rb:160:
> > script/spec:4:
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 18 23:54:11 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:54:11 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Rails - Mock going out of scope?
In-Reply-To: <57a815bf0707182051k2058fceakb1676d929641c67@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57a815bf0707181556h695f2991ra575fe04d1b77195@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182024k51a19e99vc29da81e71499129@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707182051k2058fceakb1676d929641c67@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707182054h3e19c8e7n1cdb72a59a320430@mail.gmail.com>

Would you mind posting the migrations?

On 7/18/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> Heya David,
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> No, that didn't work, get the same error:
>
> NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> if it is a child'
> You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> The error occurred while evaluating nil.name
>
>
> If I include the fixture :languages, then replace out @language =
> mock_model... with
>
> @language = languages(:one)
>
> it all works dandy.  But I'm trying to ween myself off fixtures :)
>
> Regards
>
> Mikel
>
>
>
> On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/18/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hello list,
> > >
> > > I think I have a rails related RSpec problem with a mock going out of
> > > scope on a recursive call to a model.
> > >
> > > The code is at: http://pastie.textmate.org/79821 if you want to see it
> > > highlighted.  I have pasted it below as well.
> > >
> > > Basically, I have an acts_as_nested_set model called "Node", which
> > > works fine.  I have a function which finds the language name of the
> > > node instance.  If the language is nil for the node instance being
> > > queried, it then recursively calles language_name on it's parent until
> > > one of them has the language.  Then this gets returned.
> > >
> > > When I do this with a fixture, it works fine.  Ie, a Database call can
> > > be made to a language table and I get the language name.
> > >
> > > In the code attached it has a langauge instance being mocked.  I get
> > > the same result if I mock Language.should_receive(:find)...
> > >
> > > It SEEMS like the Mock is going out of scope on the recursive call to
> > > parent.  The direct spec to the parent to get language name works
> > > fine.
> > >
> > > Any ideas? (the code below is slimmed down to the code needed to run the spec.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Mikel
> > >
> > > CODE::
> > >
> > > class Node < ActiveRecord::Base
> > >
> > >   belongs_to :language
> > >   acts_as_nested_set :scope => :root_id
> > >
> > >   def language_name
> > >     self.root? ? language.name : parent.language_name
> > >   end
> > > end
> > >
> > > describe Node, "instance" do
> > >
> > >   fixtures :nodes
> > >
> > >   before(:each) do
> > >     @language = mock_model(Language, :name => "Japanese")
> > >     @node = Node.create!(:language => @language)
> > >     @section1 = Node.create!()
> > >     @chapter1 = Node.create!()
> > >   end
> > >
> > >   it "should return it's own language if it is root" do  # Passes
> > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > >     @node.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > >   end
> > >
> > >   it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
> > > Fails (message below)
> > >     @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
> > >     @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
> > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > >     @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > >     @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > >   end
> > > end
> >
> > It's generally not recommended that you set expectations, invoke them
> > and then set them again. I'm not sure, but that may be the problem
> > here. Try this:
> >
> >   it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
> > Fails (message below)
> >     @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
> >     @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
> >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:twice).and_return("Japanese")
> >     @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> >     @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> >   end
> >
> > Does that work?
> >
> > >
> > > SPEC ERROR::
> > >
> > > NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> > > if it is a child'
> > > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> > > The error occurred while evaluating nil.name
> > > /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> > > 'language_name'
> > > /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> > > 'language_name'
> > > ./spec/models/node_spec.rb:160:
> > > script/spec:4:
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul 19 00:02:21 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:02:21 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Rails - Mock going out of scope?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707182054h3e19c8e7n1cdb72a59a320430@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57a815bf0707181556h695f2991ra575fe04d1b77195@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182024k51a19e99vc29da81e71499129@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707182051k2058fceakb1676d929641c67@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182054h3e19c8e7n1cdb72a59a320430@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707182102ra36c57q9739f18f80d6a8d@mail.gmail.com>

You might also want to try this w/ another mock framework like mocha
or flexmock (or rr if you're on edge). If you do, please report the
results here.

Thx

On 7/18/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> Would you mind posting the migrations?
>
> On 7/18/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Heya David,
> >
> > Thanks for the reply.
> >
> > No, that didn't work, get the same error:
> >
> > NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> > if it is a child'
> > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> > The error occurred while evaluating nil.name
> >
> >
> > If I include the fixture :languages, then replace out @language =
> > mock_model... with
> >
> > @language = languages(:one)
> >
> > it all works dandy.  But I'm trying to ween myself off fixtures :)
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Mikel
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/18/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hello list,
> > > >
> > > > I think I have a rails related RSpec problem with a mock going out of
> > > > scope on a recursive call to a model.
> > > >
> > > > The code is at: http://pastie.textmate.org/79821 if you want to see it
> > > > highlighted.  I have pasted it below as well.
> > > >
> > > > Basically, I have an acts_as_nested_set model called "Node", which
> > > > works fine.  I have a function which finds the language name of the
> > > > node instance.  If the language is nil for the node instance being
> > > > queried, it then recursively calles language_name on it's parent until
> > > > one of them has the language.  Then this gets returned.
> > > >
> > > > When I do this with a fixture, it works fine.  Ie, a Database call can
> > > > be made to a language table and I get the language name.
> > > >
> > > > In the code attached it has a langauge instance being mocked.  I get
> > > > the same result if I mock Language.should_receive(:find)...
> > > >
> > > > It SEEMS like the Mock is going out of scope on the recursive call to
> > > > parent.  The direct spec to the parent to get language name works
> > > > fine.
> > > >
> > > > Any ideas? (the code below is slimmed down to the code needed to run the spec.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Mikel
> > > >
> > > > CODE::
> > > >
> > > > class Node < ActiveRecord::Base
> > > >
> > > >   belongs_to :language
> > > >   acts_as_nested_set :scope => :root_id
> > > >
> > > >   def language_name
> > > >     self.root? ? language.name : parent.language_name
> > > >   end
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > > describe Node, "instance" do
> > > >
> > > >   fixtures :nodes
> > > >
> > > >   before(:each) do
> > > >     @language = mock_model(Language, :name => "Japanese")
> > > >     @node = Node.create!(:language => @language)
> > > >     @section1 = Node.create!()
> > > >     @chapter1 = Node.create!()
> > > >   end
> > > >
> > > >   it "should return it's own language if it is root" do  # Passes
> > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > >     @node.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > >   end
> > > >
> > > >   it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
> > > > Fails (message below)
> > > >     @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
> > > >     @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
> > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > >     @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > >     @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > >   end
> > > > end
> > >
> > > It's generally not recommended that you set expectations, invoke them
> > > and then set them again. I'm not sure, but that may be the problem
> > > here. Try this:
> > >
> > >   it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
> > > Fails (message below)
> > >     @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
> > >     @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
> > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:twice).and_return("Japanese")
> > >     @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > >     @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > >   end
> > >
> > > Does that work?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > SPEC ERROR::
> > > >
> > > > NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> > > > if it is a child'
> > > > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> > > > The error occurred while evaluating nil.name
> > > > /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> > > > 'language_name'
> > > > /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> > > > 'language_name'
> > > > ./spec/models/node_spec.rb:160:
> > > > script/spec:4:
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
>

From raasdnil at gmail.com  Thu Jul 19 00:23:50 2007
From: raasdnil at gmail.com (Mikel Lindsaar)
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:23:50 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Rails - Mock going out of scope?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707182054h3e19c8e7n1cdb72a59a320430@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57a815bf0707181556h695f2991ra575fe04d1b77195@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182024k51a19e99vc29da81e71499129@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707182051k2058fceakb1676d929641c67@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182054h3e19c8e7n1cdb72a59a320430@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57a815bf0707182123h59e99075s424f367cdceb5660@mail.gmail.com>

Here are the migrations:

class CreateNodes < ActiveRecord::Migration
  def self.up
    create_table ("nodes", :options => 'ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT
CHARSET=utf8', :force => true) do |t|
      t.column "title",            :string
      t.column "language_id",      :integer
      t.column "parent_id",        :integer
      t.column "lft",              :integer
      t.column "rgt",              :integer
      t.column "original_node_id", :integer
      t.column "owner_id",         :integer
      t.column "owner_type",       :string
      t.column "root_id",          :integer
    end
  end

  def self.down
    drop_table "nodes"
  end
end

class CreateLanguagesTable < ActiveRecord::Migration
  def self.up
    create_table (:languages, :options => 'ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT
CHARSET=utf8', :force => true) do |t|
      t.column :name, :string
    end
  end

  def self.down
    drop_table :languages
  end
end


The Nodes Model also has a self referrential association, but I don't
think that would be causing any problems.

class Node < ActiveRecord::Base
  belongs_to :language
  belongs_to :owner, :polymorphic => true

  # Self referrential association, nodes have many original nodes - keeps track
  # of all original => translation associations
  belongs_to :original_node, :class_name => "Node", :foreign_key =>
"original_node_id"
  has_many :translated_nodes, :class_name => "Node", :foreign_key =>
"original_node_id"

  acts_as_nested_set :scope => :root_id

  #  + code from the original pastie

end


There are some other associations, but they are all belongs_to or
has_many, so I haven't bothered to put all the tables in here and have
removed the appropriate foreign keys from the nodes table.


Regards

Mikel


On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> Would you mind posting the migrations?
>
> On 7/18/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Heya David,
> >
> > Thanks for the reply.
> >
> > No, that didn't work, get the same error:
> >
> > NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> > if it is a child'
> > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> > The error occurred while evaluating nil.name
> >
> >
> > If I include the fixture :languages, then replace out @language =
> > mock_model... with
> >
> > @language = languages(:one)
> >
> > it all works dandy.  But I'm trying to ween myself off fixtures :)
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Mikel
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/18/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hello list,
> > > >
> > > > I think I have a rails related RSpec problem with a mock going out of
> > > > scope on a recursive call to a model.
> > > >
> > > > The code is at: http://pastie.textmate.org/79821 if you want to see it
> > > > highlighted.  I have pasted it below as well.
> > > >
> > > > Basically, I have an acts_as_nested_set model called "Node", which
> > > > works fine.  I have a function which finds the language name of the
> > > > node instance.  If the language is nil for the node instance being
> > > > queried, it then recursively calles language_name on it's parent until
> > > > one of them has the language.  Then this gets returned.
> > > >
> > > > When I do this with a fixture, it works fine.  Ie, a Database call can
> > > > be made to a language table and I get the language name.
> > > >
> > > > In the code attached it has a langauge instance being mocked.  I get
> > > > the same result if I mock Language.should_receive(:find)...
> > > >
> > > > It SEEMS like the Mock is going out of scope on the recursive call to
> > > > parent.  The direct spec to the parent to get language name works
> > > > fine.
> > > >
> > > > Any ideas? (the code below is slimmed down to the code needed to run the spec.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Mikel
> > > >
> > > > CODE::
> > > >
> > > > class Node < ActiveRecord::Base
> > > >
> > > >   belongs_to :language
> > > >   acts_as_nested_set :scope => :root_id
> > > >
> > > >   def language_name
> > > >     self.root? ? language.name : parent.language_name
> > > >   end
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > > describe Node, "instance" do
> > > >
> > > >   fixtures :nodes
> > > >
> > > >   before(:each) do
> > > >     @language = mock_model(Language, :name => "Japanese")
> > > >     @node = Node.create!(:language => @language)
> > > >     @section1 = Node.create!()
> > > >     @chapter1 = Node.create!()
> > > >   end
> > > >
> > > >   it "should return it's own language if it is root" do  # Passes
> > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > >     @node.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > >   end
> > > >
> > > >   it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
> > > > Fails (message below)
> > > >     @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
> > > >     @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
> > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > >     @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > >     @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > >   end
> > > > end
> > >
> > > It's generally not recommended that you set expectations, invoke them
> > > and then set them again. I'm not sure, but that may be the problem
> > > here. Try this:
> > >
> > >   it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
> > > Fails (message below)
> > >     @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
> > >     @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
> > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:twice).and_return("Japanese")
> > >     @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > >     @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > >   end
> > >
> > > Does that work?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > SPEC ERROR::
> > > >
> > > > NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> > > > if it is a child'
> > > > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> > > > The error occurred while evaluating nil.name
> > > > /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> > > > 'language_name'
> > > > /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> > > > 'language_name'
> > > > ./spec/models/node_spec.rb:160:
> > > > script/spec:4:
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul 19 00:34:42 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:34:42 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Rails - Mock going out of scope?
In-Reply-To: <57a815bf0707182123h59e99075s424f367cdceb5660@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57a815bf0707181556h695f2991ra575fe04d1b77195@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182024k51a19e99vc29da81e71499129@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707182051k2058fceakb1676d929641c67@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182054h3e19c8e7n1cdb72a59a320430@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707182123h59e99075s424f367cdceb5660@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707182134w38ae3e60vaed10692be285c67@mail.gmail.com>

Here are the errors I'm getting now:

1)
NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
if it is a child'
undefined method `move_to_child_of' for #<Node:0x34d3110>
./spec/models/node_spec.rb:20:

2)
NameError in 'Node instance should return it's own language if it is root'
undefined local variable or method `parent' for #<Node:0x34b8ef0>
/Users/david/projects/ruby/nodes/config/../app/models/node.rb:7:in
`language_name'
./spec/models/node_spec.rb:16:

What version of rails are you using? And is there a plugin you're
using for nested set?

David

On 7/19/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here are the migrations:
>
> class CreateNodes < ActiveRecord::Migration
>   def self.up
>     create_table ("nodes", :options => 'ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT
> CHARSET=utf8', :force => true) do |t|
>       t.column "title",            :string
>       t.column "language_id",      :integer
>       t.column "parent_id",        :integer
>       t.column "lft",              :integer
>       t.column "rgt",              :integer
>       t.column "original_node_id", :integer
>       t.column "owner_id",         :integer
>       t.column "owner_type",       :string
>       t.column "root_id",          :integer
>     end
>   end
>
>   def self.down
>     drop_table "nodes"
>   end
> end
>
> class CreateLanguagesTable < ActiveRecord::Migration
>   def self.up
>     create_table (:languages, :options => 'ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT
> CHARSET=utf8', :force => true) do |t|
>       t.column :name, :string
>     end
>   end
>
>   def self.down
>     drop_table :languages
>   end
> end
>
>
> The Nodes Model also has a self referrential association, but I don't
> think that would be causing any problems.
>
> class Node < ActiveRecord::Base
>   belongs_to :language
>   belongs_to :owner, :polymorphic => true
>
>   # Self referrential association, nodes have many original nodes - keeps track
>   # of all original => translation associations
>   belongs_to :original_node, :class_name => "Node", :foreign_key =>
> "original_node_id"
>   has_many :translated_nodes, :class_name => "Node", :foreign_key =>
> "original_node_id"
>
>   acts_as_nested_set :scope => :root_id
>
>   #  + code from the original pastie
>
> end
>
>
> There are some other associations, but they are all belongs_to or
> has_many, so I haven't bothered to put all the tables in here and have
> removed the appropriate foreign keys from the nodes table.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Mikel
>
>
> On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Would you mind posting the migrations?
> >
> > On 7/18/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Heya David,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the reply.
> > >
> > > No, that didn't work, get the same error:
> > >
> > > NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> > > if it is a child'
> > > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> > > The error occurred while evaluating nil.name
> > >
> > >
> > > If I include the fixture :languages, then replace out @language =
> > > mock_model... with
> > >
> > > @language = languages(:one)
> > >
> > > it all works dandy.  But I'm trying to ween myself off fixtures :)
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Mikel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 7/18/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hello list,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think I have a rails related RSpec problem with a mock going out of
> > > > > scope on a recursive call to a model.
> > > > >
> > > > > The code is at: http://pastie.textmate.org/79821 if you want to see it
> > > > > highlighted.  I have pasted it below as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Basically, I have an acts_as_nested_set model called "Node", which
> > > > > works fine.  I have a function which finds the language name of the
> > > > > node instance.  If the language is nil for the node instance being
> > > > > queried, it then recursively calles language_name on it's parent until
> > > > > one of them has the language.  Then this gets returned.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I do this with a fixture, it works fine.  Ie, a Database call can
> > > > > be made to a language table and I get the language name.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the code attached it has a langauge instance being mocked.  I get
> > > > > the same result if I mock Language.should_receive(:find)...
> > > > >
> > > > > It SEEMS like the Mock is going out of scope on the recursive call to
> > > > > parent.  The direct spec to the parent to get language name works
> > > > > fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any ideas? (the code below is slimmed down to the code needed to run the spec.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Mikel
> > > > >
> > > > > CODE::
> > > > >
> > > > > class Node < ActiveRecord::Base
> > > > >
> > > > >   belongs_to :language
> > > > >   acts_as_nested_set :scope => :root_id
> > > > >
> > > > >   def language_name
> > > > >     self.root? ? language.name : parent.language_name
> > > > >   end
> > > > > end
> > > > >
> > > > > describe Node, "instance" do
> > > > >
> > > > >   fixtures :nodes
> > > > >
> > > > >   before(:each) do
> > > > >     @language = mock_model(Language, :name => "Japanese")
> > > > >     @node = Node.create!(:language => @language)
> > > > >     @section1 = Node.create!()
> > > > >     @chapter1 = Node.create!()
> > > > >   end
> > > > >
> > > > >   it "should return it's own language if it is root" do  # Passes
> > > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > > >     @node.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > >   end
> > > > >
> > > > >   it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
> > > > > Fails (message below)
> > > > >     @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
> > > > >     @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
> > > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > > >     @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > > >     @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > >   end
> > > > > end
> > > >
> > > > It's generally not recommended that you set expectations, invoke them
> > > > and then set them again. I'm not sure, but that may be the problem
> > > > here. Try this:
> > > >
> > > >   it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
> > > > Fails (message below)
> > > >     @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
> > > >     @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
> > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:twice).and_return("Japanese")
> > > >     @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > >     @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > >   end
> > > >
> > > > Does that work?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > SPEC ERROR::
> > > > >
> > > > > NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> > > > > if it is a child'
> > > > > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> > > > > The error occurred while evaluating nil.name
> > > > > /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> > > > > 'language_name'
> > > > > /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> > > > > 'language_name'
> > > > > ./spec/models/node_spec.rb:160:
> > > > > script/spec:4:
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From raasdnil at gmail.com  Thu Jul 19 00:49:07 2007
From: raasdnil at gmail.com (Mikel Lindsaar)
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:49:07 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Rails - Mock going out of scope?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707182134w38ae3e60vaed10692be285c67@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57a815bf0707181556h695f2991ra575fe04d1b77195@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182024k51a19e99vc29da81e71499129@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707182051k2058fceakb1676d929641c67@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182054h3e19c8e7n1cdb72a59a320430@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707182123h59e99075s424f367cdceb5660@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182134w38ae3e60vaed10692be285c67@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57a815bf0707182149k59cc45d4h4dc351ce5111a759@mail.gmail.com>

Crap, I totally, forgot to mention, sorry David.  I am using betternestedset

http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/BetterNestedSet

script/plugin source svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/betternestedset
script/plugin install betternestedset


Regards

Mikel

On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here are the errors I'm getting now:
>
> 1)
> NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> if it is a child'
> undefined method `move_to_child_of' for #<Node:0x34d3110>
> ./spec/models/node_spec.rb:20:
>
> 2)
> NameError in 'Node instance should return it's own language if it is root'
> undefined local variable or method `parent' for #<Node:0x34b8ef0>
> /Users/david/projects/ruby/nodes/config/../app/models/node.rb:7:in
> `language_name'
> ./spec/models/node_spec.rb:16:
>
> What version of rails are you using? And is there a plugin you're
> using for nested set?
>
> David
>
> On 7/19/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here are the migrations:
> >
> > class CreateNodes < ActiveRecord::Migration
> >   def self.up
> >     create_table ("nodes", :options => 'ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT
> > CHARSET=utf8', :force => true) do |t|
> >       t.column "title",            :string
> >       t.column "language_id",      :integer
> >       t.column "parent_id",        :integer
> >       t.column "lft",              :integer
> >       t.column "rgt",              :integer
> >       t.column "original_node_id", :integer
> >       t.column "owner_id",         :integer
> >       t.column "owner_type",       :string
> >       t.column "root_id",          :integer
> >     end
> >   end
> >
> >   def self.down
> >     drop_table "nodes"
> >   end
> > end
> >
> > class CreateLanguagesTable < ActiveRecord::Migration
> >   def self.up
> >     create_table (:languages, :options => 'ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT
> > CHARSET=utf8', :force => true) do |t|
> >       t.column :name, :string
> >     end
> >   end
> >
> >   def self.down
> >     drop_table :languages
> >   end
> > end
> >
> >
> > The Nodes Model also has a self referrential association, but I don't
> > think that would be causing any problems.
> >
> > class Node < ActiveRecord::Base
> >   belongs_to :language
> >   belongs_to :owner, :polymorphic => true
> >
> >   # Self referrential association, nodes have many original nodes - keeps track
> >   # of all original => translation associations
> >   belongs_to :original_node, :class_name => "Node", :foreign_key =>
> > "original_node_id"
> >   has_many :translated_nodes, :class_name => "Node", :foreign_key =>
> > "original_node_id"
> >
> >   acts_as_nested_set :scope => :root_id
> >
> >   #  + code from the original pastie
> >
> > end
> >
> >
> > There are some other associations, but they are all belongs_to or
> > has_many, so I haven't bothered to put all the tables in here and have
> > removed the appropriate foreign keys from the nodes table.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Mikel
> >
> >
> > On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Would you mind posting the migrations?
> > >
> > > On 7/18/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Heya David,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the reply.
> > > >
> > > > No, that didn't work, get the same error:
> > > >
> > > > NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> > > > if it is a child'
> > > > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> > > > The error occurred while evaluating nil.name
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If I include the fixture :languages, then replace out @language =
> > > > mock_model... with
> > > >
> > > > @language = languages(:one)
> > > >
> > > > it all works dandy.  But I'm trying to ween myself off fixtures :)
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Mikel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 7/18/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hello list,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think I have a rails related RSpec problem with a mock going out of
> > > > > > scope on a recursive call to a model.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The code is at: http://pastie.textmate.org/79821 if you want to see it
> > > > > > highlighted.  I have pasted it below as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Basically, I have an acts_as_nested_set model called "Node", which
> > > > > > works fine.  I have a function which finds the language name of the
> > > > > > node instance.  If the language is nil for the node instance being
> > > > > > queried, it then recursively calles language_name on it's parent until
> > > > > > one of them has the language.  Then this gets returned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I do this with a fixture, it works fine.  Ie, a Database call can
> > > > > > be made to a language table and I get the language name.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the code attached it has a langauge instance being mocked.  I get
> > > > > > the same result if I mock Language.should_receive(:find)...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It SEEMS like the Mock is going out of scope on the recursive call to
> > > > > > parent.  The direct spec to the parent to get language name works
> > > > > > fine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any ideas? (the code below is slimmed down to the code needed to run the spec.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mikel
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CODE::
> > > > > >
> > > > > > class Node < ActiveRecord::Base
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   belongs_to :language
> > > > > >   acts_as_nested_set :scope => :root_id
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   def language_name
> > > > > >     self.root? ? language.name : parent.language_name
> > > > > >   end
> > > > > > end
> > > > > >
> > > > > > describe Node, "instance" do
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   fixtures :nodes
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   before(:each) do
> > > > > >     @language = mock_model(Language, :name => "Japanese")
> > > > > >     @node = Node.create!(:language => @language)
> > > > > >     @section1 = Node.create!()
> > > > > >     @chapter1 = Node.create!()
> > > > > >   end
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   it "should return it's own language if it is root" do  # Passes
> > > > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > > > >     @node.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > > >   end
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
> > > > > > Fails (message below)
> > > > > >     @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
> > > > > >     @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
> > > > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > > > >     @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > > > >     @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > > >   end
> > > > > > end
> > > > >
> > > > > It's generally not recommended that you set expectations, invoke them
> > > > > and then set them again. I'm not sure, but that may be the problem
> > > > > here. Try this:
> > > > >
> > > > >   it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
> > > > > Fails (message below)
> > > > >     @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
> > > > >     @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
> > > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:twice).and_return("Japanese")
> > > > >     @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > >     @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > >   end
> > > > >
> > > > > Does that work?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SPEC ERROR::
> > > > > >
> > > > > > NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> > > > > > if it is a child'
> > > > > > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> > > > > > The error occurred while evaluating nil.name
> > > > > > /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> > > > > > 'language_name'
> > > > > > /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> > > > > > 'language_name'
> > > > > > ./spec/models/node_spec.rb:160:
> > > > > > script/spec:4:
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From raasdnil at gmail.com  Thu Jul 19 00:50:15 2007
From: raasdnil at gmail.com (Mikel Lindsaar)
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:50:15 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Rails - Mock going out of scope?
In-Reply-To: <57a815bf0707182149k59cc45d4h4dc351ce5111a759@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57a815bf0707181556h695f2991ra575fe04d1b77195@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182024k51a19e99vc29da81e71499129@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707182051k2058fceakb1676d929641c67@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182054h3e19c8e7n1cdb72a59a320430@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707182123h59e99075s424f367cdceb5660@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182134w38ae3e60vaed10692be285c67@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707182149k59cc45d4h4dc351ce5111a759@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57a815bf0707182150v1ab34e83pd5f90a4d6733474d@mail.gmail.com>

Using 1.2.3 and RSpec with the RSpec Rails plugin installed from
CURRENT on the RSpec SVN server.

On 7/19/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> Crap, I totally, forgot to mention, sorry David.  I am using betternestedset
>
> http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/BetterNestedSet
>
> script/plugin source svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/betternestedset
> script/plugin install betternestedset
>
>
> Regards
>
> Mikel
>
> On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here are the errors I'm getting now:
> >
> > 1)
> > NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> > if it is a child'
> > undefined method `move_to_child_of' for #<Node:0x34d3110>
> > ./spec/models/node_spec.rb:20:
> >
> > 2)
> > NameError in 'Node instance should return it's own language if it is root'
> > undefined local variable or method `parent' for #<Node:0x34b8ef0>
> > /Users/david/projects/ruby/nodes/config/../app/models/node.rb:7:in
> > `language_name'
> > ./spec/models/node_spec.rb:16:
> >
> > What version of rails are you using? And is there a plugin you're
> > using for nested set?
> >
> > David
> >
> > On 7/19/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Here are the migrations:
> > >
> > > class CreateNodes < ActiveRecord::Migration
> > >   def self.up
> > >     create_table ("nodes", :options => 'ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT
> > > CHARSET=utf8', :force => true) do |t|
> > >       t.column "title",            :string
> > >       t.column "language_id",      :integer
> > >       t.column "parent_id",        :integer
> > >       t.column "lft",              :integer
> > >       t.column "rgt",              :integer
> > >       t.column "original_node_id", :integer
> > >       t.column "owner_id",         :integer
> > >       t.column "owner_type",       :string
> > >       t.column "root_id",          :integer
> > >     end
> > >   end
> > >
> > >   def self.down
> > >     drop_table "nodes"
> > >   end
> > > end
> > >
> > > class CreateLanguagesTable < ActiveRecord::Migration
> > >   def self.up
> > >     create_table (:languages, :options => 'ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT
> > > CHARSET=utf8', :force => true) do |t|
> > >       t.column :name, :string
> > >     end
> > >   end
> > >
> > >   def self.down
> > >     drop_table :languages
> > >   end
> > > end
> > >
> > >
> > > The Nodes Model also has a self referrential association, but I don't
> > > think that would be causing any problems.
> > >
> > > class Node < ActiveRecord::Base
> > >   belongs_to :language
> > >   belongs_to :owner, :polymorphic => true
> > >
> > >   # Self referrential association, nodes have many original nodes - keeps track
> > >   # of all original => translation associations
> > >   belongs_to :original_node, :class_name => "Node", :foreign_key =>
> > > "original_node_id"
> > >   has_many :translated_nodes, :class_name => "Node", :foreign_key =>
> > > "original_node_id"
> > >
> > >   acts_as_nested_set :scope => :root_id
> > >
> > >   #  + code from the original pastie
> > >
> > > end
> > >
> > >
> > > There are some other associations, but they are all belongs_to or
> > > has_many, so I haven't bothered to put all the tables in here and have
> > > removed the appropriate foreign keys from the nodes table.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Mikel
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Would you mind posting the migrations?
> > > >
> > > > On 7/18/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Heya David,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the reply.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, that didn't work, get the same error:
> > > > >
> > > > > NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> > > > > if it is a child'
> > > > > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> > > > > The error occurred while evaluating nil.name
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If I include the fixture :languages, then replace out @language =
> > > > > mock_model... with
> > > > >
> > > > > @language = languages(:one)
> > > > >
> > > > > it all works dandy.  But I'm trying to ween myself off fixtures :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Mikel
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On 7/18/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hello list,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think I have a rails related RSpec problem with a mock going out of
> > > > > > > scope on a recursive call to a model.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The code is at: http://pastie.textmate.org/79821 if you want to see it
> > > > > > > highlighted.  I have pasted it below as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Basically, I have an acts_as_nested_set model called "Node", which
> > > > > > > works fine.  I have a function which finds the language name of the
> > > > > > > node instance.  If the language is nil for the node instance being
> > > > > > > queried, it then recursively calles language_name on it's parent until
> > > > > > > one of them has the language.  Then this gets returned.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When I do this with a fixture, it works fine.  Ie, a Database call can
> > > > > > > be made to a language table and I get the language name.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the code attached it has a langauge instance being mocked.  I get
> > > > > > > the same result if I mock Language.should_receive(:find)...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It SEEMS like the Mock is going out of scope on the recursive call to
> > > > > > > parent.  The direct spec to the parent to get language name works
> > > > > > > fine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any ideas? (the code below is slimmed down to the code needed to run the spec.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mikel
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > CODE::
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > class Node < ActiveRecord::Base
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   belongs_to :language
> > > > > > >   acts_as_nested_set :scope => :root_id
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   def language_name
> > > > > > >     self.root? ? language.name : parent.language_name
> > > > > > >   end
> > > > > > > end
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > describe Node, "instance" do
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   fixtures :nodes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   before(:each) do
> > > > > > >     @language = mock_model(Language, :name => "Japanese")
> > > > > > >     @node = Node.create!(:language => @language)
> > > > > > >     @section1 = Node.create!()
> > > > > > >     @chapter1 = Node.create!()
> > > > > > >   end
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   it "should return it's own language if it is root" do  # Passes
> > > > > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > > > > >     @node.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > > > >   end
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
> > > > > > > Fails (message below)
> > > > > > >     @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
> > > > > > >     @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
> > > > > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > > > > >     @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > > > > >     @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > > > >   end
> > > > > > > end
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's generally not recommended that you set expectations, invoke them
> > > > > > and then set them again. I'm not sure, but that may be the problem
> > > > > > here. Try this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
> > > > > > Fails (message below)
> > > > > >     @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
> > > > > >     @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
> > > > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:twice).and_return("Japanese")
> > > > > >     @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > > >     @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > > >   end
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does that work?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > SPEC ERROR::
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> > > > > > > if it is a child'
> > > > > > > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> > > > > > > The error occurred while evaluating nil.name
> > > > > > > /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> > > > > > > 'language_name'
> > > > > > > /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> > > > > > > 'language_name'
> > > > > > > ./spec/models/node_spec.rb:160:
> > > > > > > script/spec:4:
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
>

From barjunk at attglobal.net  Thu Jul 19 01:08:21 2007
From: barjunk at attglobal.net (barsalou)
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:08:21 -0800
Subject: [rspec-users] need help getting a word right
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707182035t6b4e49f8u83b99e8da0b5e479@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57c63afe0707182035t6b4e49f8u83b99e8da0b5e479@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070718210821.l1a8no138oo0swc0@lcgalaska.com>

Well in that specific case, please seems like a good choice

   please do
      @thing.should be_somthing
   end

But If you had text in between then it wouldn't seem the same:

   please "whatever text" do
      @thing.should be_something
   end



Quoting David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>:

> Hey all,
>
> I see examples showing up that look like this:
>
> describe Thing do
>  before(:each) do
>    @thing = Thing.new
>  end
>
>  it do
>    @thing.should be_something
>  end
> end
>
> This will produce output like this:
>
> Thing
> - should be something
>
> But "it do" is driving me mad :(
>
> We need a better word. Of course, 'specify' has not been completely
> removed, so you can still do this:
>
> describe Thing do
>  before(:each) { @thing = Thing.new }
>  specify { @thing.should be_something }
> end
>
> Consise? Yes. But I'm not psyched about 'specify' either. There IS a
> perfect word for this situation. What is it? Suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> David
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


From raasdnil at gmail.com  Thu Jul 19 01:14:09 2007
From: raasdnil at gmail.com (Mikel Lindsaar)
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:14:09 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] need help getting a word right
In-Reply-To: <87a13e220707182044n148aeb07tf9bfee7be365d22@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57c63afe0707182035t6b4e49f8u83b99e8da0b5e479@mail.gmail.com>
	<87a13e220707182044n148aeb07tf9bfee7be365d22@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57a815bf0707182214i6ebee810u4dbd1d5c97872da8@mail.gmail.com>

I like the it "should..." do end calls, specifiy as well makes sense.

So what is the problem?  I think we should take a look at what comments are for.

Essentially the "should blah" text acts as a comment on the spec.  One
that is then picked up by RSpec and inserted to make our
specifications more readable in one line.

So, if we treat these "shoulds..." as essentially comments, it then
opens the door to a resolution as the only place you should use
comments is when the code itself is not immediately self documenting.

In the Spec world, this really means anything that is more than say
one or two lines of code.

Why?  Well, that's just an opinion.  But we could make the following
best practice:

If your spec utilizes one matcher and fits on one line, then use:

specify { target.should == blah }

if your spec can not be succinctly and clearly described in one line
of code, then you should add a spec "comment" and so use

it "should accept an XML feed" do
 xml = mock(XMLFeed)
 target.handle_feed(xml).should == true
end

The point of specs is their readability and clarity.  By making that
simple distinction as a "best practice" you handle the situation.

That way reading down the spec code would be almost as clear as
looking at the RSpec doc html page.

then again, with text editors typing "it<tab>" and writing a spec is
really not THAT hard is it?

Regards

Mikel

On 7/19/07, Robert Feldt <robert.feldt at bth.se> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I see examples showing up that look like this:
> >
> > describe Thing do
> >   before(:each) do
> >     @thing = Thing.new
> >   end
> >
> >   it do
> >     @thing.should be_something
> >   end
> > end
> >
> > This will produce output like this:
> >
> > Thing
> > - should be something
> >
> > But "it do" is driving me mad :(
> >
> > We need a better word. Of course, 'specify' has not been completely
> > removed, so you can still do this:
> >
> > describe Thing do
> >   before(:each) { @thing = Thing.new }
> >   specify { @thing.should be_something }
> > end
> >
> > Consise? Yes. But I'm not psyched about 'specify' either. There IS a
> > perfect word for this situation. What is it? Suggestions?
>
> I like "should" or "spec" the best.
>
> While I'm at it why not "given" instead of "describe"?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Robert Feldt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul 19 01:23:07 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 01:23:07 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Rails - Mock going out of scope?
In-Reply-To: <57a815bf0707182150v1ab34e83pd5f90a4d6733474d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57a815bf0707181556h695f2991ra575fe04d1b77195@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182024k51a19e99vc29da81e71499129@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707182051k2058fceakb1676d929641c67@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182054h3e19c8e7n1cdb72a59a320430@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707182123h59e99075s424f367cdceb5660@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182134w38ae3e60vaed10692be285c67@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707182149k59cc45d4h4dc351ce5111a759@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707182150v1ab34e83pd5f90a4d6733474d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707182223q24e55ae1rd1fed6df4c1a4cd7@mail.gmail.com>

D'oh. I should have figured this out on first sighting:

The parent method does a find, so it retrieves a new object from the
db - not the instance of Node you have defined. This new instance has
no language associated with it (because the one you gave it pretends
to exist by sporting an ID, but is never saved to the DB).

Make sense?

So, if you want to mock this, you have to mock a bit more than what
you have in mind. Check out this pastie:
http://pastie.textmate.org/80159

David

On 7/19/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> Using 1.2.3 and RSpec with the RSpec Rails plugin installed from
> CURRENT on the RSpec SVN server.
>
> On 7/19/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Crap, I totally, forgot to mention, sorry David.  I am using betternestedset
> >
> > http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/BetterNestedSet
> >
> > script/plugin source svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/betternestedset
> > script/plugin install betternestedset
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Mikel
> >
> > On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Here are the errors I'm getting now:
> > >
> > > 1)
> > > NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> > > if it is a child'
> > > undefined method `move_to_child_of' for #<Node:0x34d3110>
> > > ./spec/models/node_spec.rb:20:
> > >
> > > 2)
> > > NameError in 'Node instance should return it's own language if it is root'
> > > undefined local variable or method `parent' for #<Node:0x34b8ef0>
> > > /Users/david/projects/ruby/nodes/config/../app/models/node.rb:7:in
> > > `language_name'
> > > ./spec/models/node_spec.rb:16:
> > >
> > > What version of rails are you using? And is there a plugin you're
> > > using for nested set?
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > > On 7/19/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Here are the migrations:
> > > >
> > > > class CreateNodes < ActiveRecord::Migration
> > > >   def self.up
> > > >     create_table ("nodes", :options => 'ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT
> > > > CHARSET=utf8', :force => true) do |t|
> > > >       t.column "title",            :string
> > > >       t.column "language_id",      :integer
> > > >       t.column "parent_id",        :integer
> > > >       t.column "lft",              :integer
> > > >       t.column "rgt",              :integer
> > > >       t.column "original_node_id", :integer
> > > >       t.column "owner_id",         :integer
> > > >       t.column "owner_type",       :string
> > > >       t.column "root_id",          :integer
> > > >     end
> > > >   end
> > > >
> > > >   def self.down
> > > >     drop_table "nodes"
> > > >   end
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > > class CreateLanguagesTable < ActiveRecord::Migration
> > > >   def self.up
> > > >     create_table (:languages, :options => 'ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT
> > > > CHARSET=utf8', :force => true) do |t|
> > > >       t.column :name, :string
> > > >     end
> > > >   end
> > > >
> > > >   def self.down
> > > >     drop_table :languages
> > > >   end
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Nodes Model also has a self referrential association, but I don't
> > > > think that would be causing any problems.
> > > >
> > > > class Node < ActiveRecord::Base
> > > >   belongs_to :language
> > > >   belongs_to :owner, :polymorphic => true
> > > >
> > > >   # Self referrential association, nodes have many original nodes - keeps track
> > > >   # of all original => translation associations
> > > >   belongs_to :original_node, :class_name => "Node", :foreign_key =>
> > > > "original_node_id"
> > > >   has_many :translated_nodes, :class_name => "Node", :foreign_key =>
> > > > "original_node_id"
> > > >
> > > >   acts_as_nested_set :scope => :root_id
> > > >
> > > >   #  + code from the original pastie
> > > >
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There are some other associations, but they are all belongs_to or
> > > > has_many, so I haven't bothered to put all the tables in here and have
> > > > removed the appropriate foreign keys from the nodes table.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Mikel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Would you mind posting the migrations?
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/18/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Heya David,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the reply.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, that didn't work, get the same error:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> > > > > > if it is a child'
> > > > > > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> > > > > > The error occurred while evaluating nil.name
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If I include the fixture :languages, then replace out @language =
> > > > > > mock_model... with
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @language = languages(:one)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it all works dandy.  But I'm trying to ween myself off fixtures :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mikel
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On 7/18/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hello list,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think I have a rails related RSpec problem with a mock going out of
> > > > > > > > scope on a recursive call to a model.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The code is at: http://pastie.textmate.org/79821 if you want to see it
> > > > > > > > highlighted.  I have pasted it below as well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Basically, I have an acts_as_nested_set model called "Node", which
> > > > > > > > works fine.  I have a function which finds the language name of the
> > > > > > > > node instance.  If the language is nil for the node instance being
> > > > > > > > queried, it then recursively calles language_name on it's parent until
> > > > > > > > one of them has the language.  Then this gets returned.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When I do this with a fixture, it works fine.  Ie, a Database call can
> > > > > > > > be made to a language table and I get the language name.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In the code attached it has a langauge instance being mocked.  I get
> > > > > > > > the same result if I mock Language.should_receive(:find)...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It SEEMS like the Mock is going out of scope on the recursive call to
> > > > > > > > parent.  The direct spec to the parent to get language name works
> > > > > > > > fine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any ideas? (the code below is slimmed down to the code needed to run the spec.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mikel
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > CODE::
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > class Node < ActiveRecord::Base
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   belongs_to :language
> > > > > > > >   acts_as_nested_set :scope => :root_id
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   def language_name
> > > > > > > >     self.root? ? language.name : parent.language_name
> > > > > > > >   end
> > > > > > > > end
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > describe Node, "instance" do
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   fixtures :nodes
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   before(:each) do
> > > > > > > >     @language = mock_model(Language, :name => "Japanese")
> > > > > > > >     @node = Node.create!(:language => @language)
> > > > > > > >     @section1 = Node.create!()
> > > > > > > >     @chapter1 = Node.create!()
> > > > > > > >   end
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   it "should return it's own language if it is root" do  # Passes
> > > > > > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > > > > > >     @node.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > > > > >   end
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
> > > > > > > > Fails (message below)
> > > > > > > >     @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
> > > > > > > >     @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
> > > > > > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > > > > > >     @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > > > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > > > > > >     @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > > > > >   end
> > > > > > > > end
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's generally not recommended that you set expectations, invoke them
> > > > > > > and then set them again. I'm not sure, but that may be the problem
> > > > > > > here. Try this:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
> > > > > > > Fails (message below)
> > > > > > >     @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
> > > > > > >     @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
> > > > > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:twice).and_return("Japanese")
> > > > > > >     @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > > > >     @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > > > >   end
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does that work?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > SPEC ERROR::
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> > > > > > > > if it is a child'
> > > > > > > > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> > > > > > > > The error occurred while evaluating nil.name
> > > > > > > > /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> > > > > > > > 'language_name'
> > > > > > > > /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> > > > > > > > 'language_name'
> > > > > > > > ./spec/models/node_spec.rb:160:
> > > > > > > > script/spec:4:
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > > > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From raasdnil at gmail.com  Thu Jul 19 01:28:03 2007
From: raasdnil at gmail.com (Mikel Lindsaar)
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:28:03 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Rails - Mock going out of scope?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707182223q24e55ae1rd1fed6df4c1a4cd7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57a815bf0707181556h695f2991ra575fe04d1b77195@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182024k51a19e99vc29da81e71499129@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707182051k2058fceakb1676d929641c67@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182054h3e19c8e7n1cdb72a59a320430@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707182123h59e99075s424f367cdceb5660@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182134w38ae3e60vaed10692be285c67@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707182149k59cc45d4h4dc351ce5111a759@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707182150v1ab34e83pd5f90a4d6733474d@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707182223q24e55ae1rd1fed6df4c1a4cd7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57a815bf0707182228y3a3e1339m5faadb1a324cdd99@mail.gmail.com>

Makes total sense.

Thank you _very_ much David :)  All works well and handles another
question I have on a disrelated matter.

By the way, loving RSpec.  Makes testing a lot more interesting and
rewarding.  Thanks for all your work.

Regards

Mikel

On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> D'oh. I should have figured this out on first sighting:
>
> The parent method does a find, so it retrieves a new object from the
> db - not the instance of Node you have defined. This new instance has
> no language associated with it (because the one you gave it pretends
> to exist by sporting an ID, but is never saved to the DB).
>
> Make sense?
>
> So, if you want to mock this, you have to mock a bit more than what
> you have in mind. Check out this pastie:
> http://pastie.textmate.org/80159
>
> David
>
> On 7/19/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Using 1.2.3 and RSpec with the RSpec Rails plugin installed from
> > CURRENT on the RSpec SVN server.
> >
> > On 7/19/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Crap, I totally, forgot to mention, sorry David.  I am using betternestedset
> > >
> > > http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/BetterNestedSet
> > >
> > > script/plugin source svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/betternestedset
> > > script/plugin install betternestedset
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Mikel
> > >
> > > On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Here are the errors I'm getting now:
> > > >
> > > > 1)
> > > > NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> > > > if it is a child'
> > > > undefined method `move_to_child_of' for #<Node:0x34d3110>
> > > > ./spec/models/node_spec.rb:20:
> > > >
> > > > 2)
> > > > NameError in 'Node instance should return it's own language if it is root'
> > > > undefined local variable or method `parent' for #<Node:0x34b8ef0>
> > > > /Users/david/projects/ruby/nodes/config/../app/models/node.rb:7:in
> > > > `language_name'
> > > > ./spec/models/node_spec.rb:16:
> > > >
> > > > What version of rails are you using? And is there a plugin you're
> > > > using for nested set?
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > On 7/19/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Here are the migrations:
> > > > >
> > > > > class CreateNodes < ActiveRecord::Migration
> > > > >   def self.up
> > > > >     create_table ("nodes", :options => 'ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT
> > > > > CHARSET=utf8', :force => true) do |t|
> > > > >       t.column "title",            :string
> > > > >       t.column "language_id",      :integer
> > > > >       t.column "parent_id",        :integer
> > > > >       t.column "lft",              :integer
> > > > >       t.column "rgt",              :integer
> > > > >       t.column "original_node_id", :integer
> > > > >       t.column "owner_id",         :integer
> > > > >       t.column "owner_type",       :string
> > > > >       t.column "root_id",          :integer
> > > > >     end
> > > > >   end
> > > > >
> > > > >   def self.down
> > > > >     drop_table "nodes"
> > > > >   end
> > > > > end
> > > > >
> > > > > class CreateLanguagesTable < ActiveRecord::Migration
> > > > >   def self.up
> > > > >     create_table (:languages, :options => 'ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT
> > > > > CHARSET=utf8', :force => true) do |t|
> > > > >       t.column :name, :string
> > > > >     end
> > > > >   end
> > > > >
> > > > >   def self.down
> > > > >     drop_table :languages
> > > > >   end
> > > > > end
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The Nodes Model also has a self referrential association, but I don't
> > > > > think that would be causing any problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > class Node < ActiveRecord::Base
> > > > >   belongs_to :language
> > > > >   belongs_to :owner, :polymorphic => true
> > > > >
> > > > >   # Self referrential association, nodes have many original nodes - keeps track
> > > > >   # of all original => translation associations
> > > > >   belongs_to :original_node, :class_name => "Node", :foreign_key =>
> > > > > "original_node_id"
> > > > >   has_many :translated_nodes, :class_name => "Node", :foreign_key =>
> > > > > "original_node_id"
> > > > >
> > > > >   acts_as_nested_set :scope => :root_id
> > > > >
> > > > >   #  + code from the original pastie
> > > > >
> > > > > end
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There are some other associations, but they are all belongs_to or
> > > > > has_many, so I haven't bothered to put all the tables in here and have
> > > > > removed the appropriate foreign keys from the nodes table.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Mikel
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Would you mind posting the migrations?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 7/18/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Heya David,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the reply.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, that didn't work, get the same error:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> > > > > > > if it is a child'
> > > > > > > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> > > > > > > The error occurred while evaluating nil.name
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If I include the fixture :languages, then replace out @language =
> > > > > > > mock_model... with
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > @language = languages(:one)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > it all works dandy.  But I'm trying to ween myself off fixtures :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mikel
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 7/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 7/18/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hello list,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think I have a rails related RSpec problem with a mock going out of
> > > > > > > > > scope on a recursive call to a model.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The code is at: http://pastie.textmate.org/79821 if you want to see it
> > > > > > > > > highlighted.  I have pasted it below as well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Basically, I have an acts_as_nested_set model called "Node", which
> > > > > > > > > works fine.  I have a function which finds the language name of the
> > > > > > > > > node instance.  If the language is nil for the node instance being
> > > > > > > > > queried, it then recursively calles language_name on it's parent until
> > > > > > > > > one of them has the language.  Then this gets returned.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When I do this with a fixture, it works fine.  Ie, a Database call can
> > > > > > > > > be made to a language table and I get the language name.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In the code attached it has a langauge instance being mocked.  I get
> > > > > > > > > the same result if I mock Language.should_receive(:find)...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It SEEMS like the Mock is going out of scope on the recursive call to
> > > > > > > > > parent.  The direct spec to the parent to get language name works
> > > > > > > > > fine.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Any ideas? (the code below is slimmed down to the code needed to run the spec.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mikel
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > CODE::
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > class Node < ActiveRecord::Base
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   belongs_to :language
> > > > > > > > >   acts_as_nested_set :scope => :root_id
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   def language_name
> > > > > > > > >     self.root? ? language.name : parent.language_name
> > > > > > > > >   end
> > > > > > > > > end
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > describe Node, "instance" do
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   fixtures :nodes
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   before(:each) do
> > > > > > > > >     @language = mock_model(Language, :name => "Japanese")
> > > > > > > > >     @node = Node.create!(:language => @language)
> > > > > > > > >     @section1 = Node.create!()
> > > > > > > > >     @chapter1 = Node.create!()
> > > > > > > > >   end
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   it "should return it's own language if it is root" do  # Passes
> > > > > > > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > > > > > > >     @node.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > > > > > >   end
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >   it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
> > > > > > > > > Fails (message below)
> > > > > > > > >     @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
> > > > > > > > >     @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
> > > > > > > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > > > > > > >     @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > > > > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:once).and_return("Japanese")
> > > > > > > > >     @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > > > > > >   end
> > > > > > > > > end
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's generally not recommended that you set expectations, invoke them
> > > > > > > > and then set them again. I'm not sure, but that may be the problem
> > > > > > > > here. Try this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   it "should return it's parent's language if it is a child" do #
> > > > > > > > Fails (message below)
> > > > > > > >     @section1.move_to_child_of(@node)
> > > > > > > >     @chapter1.move_to_child_of(@section1)
> > > > > > > >     @language.should_receive(:name).exactly(:twice).and_return("Japanese")
> > > > > > > >     @section1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > > > > >     @chapter1.language_name.should == "Japanese"
> > > > > > > >   end
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Does that work?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > SPEC ERROR::
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > NoMethodError in 'Node instance should return it's parent's language
> > > > > > > > > if it is a child'
> > > > > > > > > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> > > > > > > > > The error occurred while evaluating nil.name
> > > > > > > > > /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> > > > > > > > > 'language_name'
> > > > > > > > > /Users/mikel/working/universal_translator/config/../app/models/node.rb:29:in
> > > > > > > > > 'language_name'
> > > > > > > > > ./spec/models/node_spec.rb:160:
> > > > > > > > > script/spec:4:
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > > > > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > > > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > > > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From raasdnil at gmail.com  Fri Jul 20 00:33:04 2007
From: raasdnil at gmail.com (Mikel Lindsaar)
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:33:04 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Little tool to help RSpec Textmate Users
Message-ID: <57a815bf0707192133j2c94524ev68579cc9976d8d27@mail.gmail.com>

Thought someone else might like this.

Just a simple way to modify your TODO list to show all unimplemented
specs in your project.

Insanely simple, but all good things usually are :)

http://www.blognow.com.au/q/67397/Behaviour_Driven_Design_RSpec_and_Textmate039s_TODO_List.html

Not sure how that long URL will wrap, the short home page is:

http://www.blognow.com.au/q/

If you want to do it yourself and don't need picutres, make a new
marker in the TODO preferences with:

/\s+it\s"(\S.*?)"\s+$/i

as the Regex.

This will find all 'it "should do somethings"' in your project and
give you a nice hyperlinked list.

Regards

Mikel

From lancecarlson at gmail.com  Fri Jul 20 22:52:49 2007
From: lancecarlson at gmail.com (Lance Carlson)
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:52:49 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing shorthand array push <<
Message-ID: <49f64a900707201952s1b620bd3jad7eb207c05b237a@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to test the shorthand way to push objects into an array. My
controller looks like:

current_user.foos << @foo

and I keep getting an error like Mock 'foos' received unexpected message :<<
with <FooClass>

does anyone have a good solution for this?

I tried controller.send(:current_user).labels.stub!(:<<).and_return([]) and
that didn't work.

TIA!
-Lance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070720/1c71d52d/attachment.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sat Jul 21 09:24:48 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:24:48 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Testing shorthand array push <<
In-Reply-To: <49f64a900707201952s1b620bd3jad7eb207c05b237a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49f64a900707201952s1b620bd3jad7eb207c05b237a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707210624ma77a22cv534391b25c242526@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/20/07, Lance Carlson <lancecarlson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm trying to test the shorthand way to push objects into an array. My
> controller looks like:
>
> current_user.foos << @foo
>
> and I keep getting an error like Mock 'foos' received unexpected message :<<
> with <FooClass>
>
> does anyone have a good solution for this?
>
> I tried controller.send(:current_user).labels.stub!(:<<).and_return([]) and
> that didn't work.

That should work. Would you please post the rspec example and the
controller code?

>
> TIA!
> -Lance
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From edward.og at gmail.com  Sun Jul 22 03:00:39 2007
From: edward.og at gmail.com (Edward Ocampo-Gooding)
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 03:00:39 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] have_tag for href with specific link?
Message-ID: <46A30097.8040702@gmail.com>

Hi folks,

I'm trying out this idea of "outside-in" and writing specs for my views 
first. Being a person who generally starts with some scribbles of a user 
interface and moves right to models, this has yet to be fun, but I'm 
giving it a shot.

My question: I'm trying to specify that an index page should show a list 
of things, each with a link to a delete action. How would my have_tag 
(or whatever I should be using) look like?

Thanks,
Edward



From hans at degraaff.org  Sun Jul 22 03:05:00 2007
From: hans at degraaff.org (Hans de Graaff)
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:05:00 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] have_tag for href with specific link?
In-Reply-To: <46A30097.8040702@gmail.com>
References: <46A30097.8040702@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1185087900.25622.2.camel@ip6-localhost>

On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 03:00 -0400, Edward Ocampo-Gooding wrote:

> My question: I'm trying to specify that an index page should show a list 
> of things, each with a link to a delete action. How would my have_tag 
> (or whatever I should be using) look like?

have_tag just wraps assert_select from Rails, so you can use all its
goodness to select specific DOM elements. In your case something like
this should work:

  response.should have_tag('a[href^=/stuff/delete]')

The ^= matches the beginning of the argument. Check the assert_select
docs for all the possible ways to match DOM elements.

Kind regards,

Hans


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070722/58e17cd8/attachment.bin 

From bosshoff at gmail.com  Sun Jul 22 08:39:38 2007
From: bosshoff at gmail.com (Chris Hoffman)
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 08:39:38 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Rails' fixtures suck! But what about something
	like this?
In-Reply-To: <ab90312e0705211336mfe288b9yd87417729a741140@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab90312e0705211336mfe288b9yd87417729a741140@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <359ebde50707220539p5f1d182t4b2281ad2bae39ef@mail.gmail.com>

Have you tried just using fixture scenarios?  Did it work?

On 5/21/07, Carl Lerche <carl.lerche at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry about the very long email, but this is a hairy topic that's been
> annoying me for some time and I decided to try to do something about.
> Also, if you got this twice, I apologize too, but it didn't seem to
> have successfully gone out the first time.
>
> Background:
> ----------
>
> I've been dealing with Rails for about a year and a half now. I've
> been using Rails' built in testing framework, and it's fine... until I
> really have to start dealing with the fixtures. I am currently working
> on an application that really focuses on selecting data using complex
> logic. The only way to test the application in a meaningful way is by
> using a large number of fixtures. This has become a real nightmare to
> manage and I almost am spending more time keeping the fixtures up to
> date than I am coding or testing. So, I took a moment, stepped back,
> and took a good look at how I could I could improve fixtures to make
> my life a lot easier.
>
> I have gotten a quick and dirty prototype of my solution running, but
> before I really roll up my sleeves and start polishing it up, I
> thought I would try to get some suggestions from the community.
>
> Overview:
> ---------
>
> In my experience, the current fixture framework has three main problems:
>
> - There is no way to create different version of fixtures. What I mean
> by this is that you only can have one users.yml file even if your
> tests depend on different initial conditions. What this usually means
> is that you will just keep tagging on to the end of users.yml even
> though it is not the most efficient way to do it.
> - Managing relationships between tables is a really big pain. One must
> manually keep track of IDs. This can quickly become a major headache.
> - There is no clean way to quickly generate data. If  I want 50
> records that I could easily generate in a loop, I still gotta write
> them by hand (at least, I wasn't able to figure out how to add loops
> to my yaml files in a clean way).
> - There is a lot of repetition. No way to follow DRY.
>
> Solution:
> ---------
>
> + Versioned Fixtures
>
> First, to address the fixture "versions", I thought the easiest way to
> do this would be scenarios (I was inspired from fixture-scenarios).
> The way fixtures could be laid out is as follows:
>
> + specs
> |- fixtures
>    |- global
>    |- only_one_signed_up_user
>    |- lots_of_posts_in_los_angeles
>    |- ...
>
> All global fixtures (fixtures that should be loaded before every spec)
> go into global, then, for each different scenario, there is a
> directory created with the relevant fixtures in there. Then, in the
> specs, you could do the following
>
> -------------------------------
> require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper'
>
> describe User, :when => :only_one_signed_up_user do
>
>   it "should be the only user" do
>     User.count.should == 1
>   end
> end
> -------------------------------
>
> The key part here would be the :when => :scenario_name option to the
> describe method.
>
> + Writing the fixtures
>
> Writing fixtures with YAML is quite ugly. I think a better way to do
> it would be using a DSL, but coming up with a good syntax is hard.
> This is where I am the most hesitant. I have two "options" and I was
> wondering if people could comment on them and give me some feedback
> and suggestions.
>
> - The first option is how I started out: http://pastie.caboo.se/63359
>
> In this option, fixtures for multiple tables can be written in a
> single file. You would start out by using the _create_ method to tell
> the parser what table the fixtures are for and you could also specify
> :with, which would set default attributes for fixtures.
>
> You could also nest fixtures in order to easily scope them (see the
> last user fixture how I specified nested post fixtures).
>
> - The second option is what I currently prefer: http://pastie.caboo.se/63361
>
> In this option, I keep the one table per file concept that is
> currently used. As such, we don't need to specify what table we want
> to use before hand. I make available a with_options method which lets
> you set default attributes for fixtures. It's also easy to create
> loops to automatically generate fixtures, as I show in the second half
> of the file. The f method is the actual method for creating a fixture.
> it takes a name as a string and a block in which the attributes of the
> fixtures are specified. However, the method_missing method is
> implemented to handle any missing methods and use that to create
> fixtures too as seen with fixture_name { ... }
>
> + Dealing with relationships
>
> I think what I hate the most about fixtures right now is having to
> deal with table relationships. Having to keep track of IDs myself is
> horrible. So, I thought that the easiest way to do this is making the
> table_name(:fixture_name) method available straight inside the
> fixtures. So, if I have a user model that has a location associated
> with it (let's say a zip code, longitude, and latitude), instead of
> having to copy / paste that data across fixtures, I can do the
> following:
>
> -------------------------------
> local_guy {
>   zip_id        zips(:portland)
>   longitude     zips(:portland).longitude
>   latitude      zips(:portland).latitude
> }
> -------------------------------
>
> This is much easier to deal with than the other way around. This also
> introduces dependencies between fixtures, I thought the easiest way to
> handle it would be adding a fixture_order configuration:
>
> -------------------------------
> Spec::Runner.configure do |config|
>   config.fixture_order = :zips, :categories, :users, :posts
> end
> -------------------------------
>
> + What's not solved with this
>
> I haven't figured out a good way to handle counter_cache columns.
> Right now, this would still require you to manually count how many
> fixtures you have associated with a parent and add that to the
> counter_cache column. Any ideas of a better way to do this?
>
> Well, that's all I came up with. I'm going to keep hacking away at
> this and hopefully you all have some feedback to improve this concept.
>
> --
> EPA Rating: 3000 Lines of Code / Gallon (of coffee)
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From edward.og at gmail.com  Sun Jul 22 11:10:12 2007
From: edward.og at gmail.com (Edward Ocampo-Gooding)
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:10:12 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] have_tag for href with specific link?
In-Reply-To: <1185087900.25622.2.camel@ip6-localhost>
References: <46A30097.8040702@gmail.com>
	<1185087900.25622.2.camel@ip6-localhost>
Message-ID: <46A37354.1020902@gmail.com>

Hans de Graaff wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 03:00 -0400, Edward Ocampo-Gooding wrote:
> 
>> My question: I'm trying to specify that an index page should show a list 
>> of things, each with a link to a delete action. How would my have_tag 
>> (or whatever I should be using) look like?
> 
> have_tag just wraps assert_select from Rails, so you can use all its
> goodness to select specific DOM elements. In your case something like
> this should work:
> 
>   response.should have_tag('a[href^=/stuff/delete]')
> 
> The ^= matches the beginning of the argument. Check the assert_select
> docs for all the possible ways to match DOM elements.

Right on. Thanks Hans.

From court3nay at gmail.com  Sun Jul 22 12:55:32 2007
From: court3nay at gmail.com (court3nay)
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:55:32 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Rails' fixtures suck! But what about something
	like this?
In-Reply-To: <359ebde50707220539p5f1d182t4b2281ad2bae39ef@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ab90312e0705211336mfe288b9yd87417729a741140@mail.gmail.com>
	<359ebde50707220539p5f1d182t4b2281ad2bae39ef@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DB63AF8C-1431-4228-8AE6-72E2AFB4A2D1@gmail.com>

Please see http://dev.rubyonrails.org/tickets/6424 for further code on  
fixtures and foreign keys.

You might also be interested in the ar_fixtures plugin from topfunky  
to dump fixtures from dev to yaml.

In most cases I'm using mocks and stubbing rather than canned data.  
Its much easier IMO to create a bunch of objects as you need them.

That being said, fixtures are far from a "solved problem" and I look  
forward to your plugin.

-------
Courtenay

On Jul 22, 2007, at 5:39 AM, "Chris Hoffman" <bosshoff at gmail.com> wrote:

> Have you tried just using fixture scenarios?  Did it work?
>
> On 5/21/07, Carl Lerche <carl.lerche at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sorry about the very long email, but this is a hairy topic that's  
>> been
>> annoying me for some time and I decided to try to do something about.
>> Also, if you got this twice, I apologize too, but it didn't seem to
>> have successfully gone out the first time.
>>
>> Background:
>> ----------
>>
>> I've been dealing with Rails for about a year and a half now. I've
>> been using Rails' built in testing framework, and it's fine...  
>> until I
>> really have to start dealing with the fixtures. I am currently  
>> working
>> on an application that really focuses on selecting data using complex
>> logic. The only way to test the application in a meaningful way is by
>> using a large number of fixtures. This has become a real nightmare to
>> manage and I almost am spending more time keeping the fixtures up to
>> date than I am coding or testing. So, I took a moment, stepped back,
>> and took a good look at how I could I could improve fixtures to make
>> my life a lot easier.
>>
>> I have gotten a quick and dirty prototype of my solution running, but
>> before I really roll up my sleeves and start polishing it up, I
>> thought I would try to get some suggestions from the community.
>>
>> Overview:
>> ---------
>>
>> In my experience, the current fixture framework has three main  
>> problems:
>>
>> - There is no way to create different version of fixtures. What I  
>> mean
>> by this is that you only can have one users.yml file even if your
>> tests depend on different initial conditions. What this usually means
>> is that you will just keep tagging on to the end of users.yml even
>> though it is not the most efficient way to do it.
>> - Managing relationships between tables is a really big pain. One  
>> must
>> manually keep track of IDs. This can quickly become a major headache.
>> - There is no clean way to quickly generate data. If  I want 50
>> records that I could easily generate in a loop, I still gotta write
>> them by hand (at least, I wasn't able to figure out how to add loops
>> to my yaml files in a clean way).
>> - There is a lot of repetition. No way to follow DRY.
>>
>> Solution:
>> ---------
>>
>> + Versioned Fixtures
>>
>> First, to address the fixture "versions", I thought the easiest way  
>> to
>> do this would be scenarios (I was inspired from fixture-scenarios).
>> The way fixtures could be laid out is as follows:
>>
>> + specs
>> |- fixtures
>>   |- global
>>   |- only_one_signed_up_user
>>   |- lots_of_posts_in_los_angeles
>>   |- ...
>>
>> All global fixtures (fixtures that should be loaded before every  
>> spec)
>> go into global, then, for each different scenario, there is a
>> directory created with the relevant fixtures in there. Then, in the
>> specs, you could do the following
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper'
>>
>> describe User, :when => :only_one_signed_up_user do
>>
>>  it "should be the only user" do
>>    User.count.should == 1
>>  end
>> end
>> -------------------------------
>>
>> The key part here would be the :when => :scenario_name option to the
>> describe method.
>>
>> + Writing the fixtures
>>
>> Writing fixtures with YAML is quite ugly. I think a better way to do
>> it would be using a DSL, but coming up with a good syntax is hard.
>> This is where I am the most hesitant. I have two "options" and I was
>> wondering if people could comment on them and give me some feedback
>> and suggestions.
>>
>> - The first option is how I started out: http://pastie.caboo.se/63359
>>
>> In this option, fixtures for multiple tables can be written in a
>> single file. You would start out by using the _create_ method to tell
>> the parser what table the fixtures are for and you could also specify
>> :with, which would set default attributes for fixtures.
>>
>> You could also nest fixtures in order to easily scope them (see the
>> last user fixture how I specified nested post fixtures).
>>
>> - The second option is what I currently prefer: http://pastie.caboo.se/63361
>>
>> In this option, I keep the one table per file concept that is
>> currently used. As such, we don't need to specify what table we want
>> to use before hand. I make available a with_options method which lets
>> you set default attributes for fixtures. It's also easy to create
>> loops to automatically generate fixtures, as I show in the second  
>> half
>> of the file. The f method is the actual method for creating a  
>> fixture.
>> it takes a name as a string and a block in which the attributes of  
>> the
>> fixtures are specified. However, the method_missing method is
>> implemented to handle any missing methods and use that to create
>> fixtures too as seen with fixture_name { ... }
>>
>> + Dealing with relationships
>>
>> I think what I hate the most about fixtures right now is having to
>> deal with table relationships. Having to keep track of IDs myself is
>> horrible. So, I thought that the easiest way to do this is making the
>> table_name(:fixture_name) method available straight inside the
>> fixtures. So, if I have a user model that has a location associated
>> with it (let's say a zip code, longitude, and latitude), instead of
>> having to copy / paste that data across fixtures, I can do the
>> following:
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> local_guy {
>>  zip_id        zips(:portland)
>>  longitude     zips(:portland).longitude
>>  latitude      zips(:portland).latitude
>> }
>> -------------------------------
>>
>> This is much easier to deal with than the other way around. This also
>> introduces dependencies between fixtures, I thought the easiest way  
>> to
>> handle it would be adding a fixture_order configuration:
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> Spec::Runner.configure do |config|
>>  config.fixture_order = :zips, :categories, :users, :posts
>> end
>> -------------------------------
>>
>> + What's not solved with this
>>
>> I haven't figured out a good way to handle counter_cache columns.
>> Right now, this would still require you to manually count how many
>> fixtures you have associated with a parent and add that to the
>> counter_cache column. Any ideas of a better way to do this?
>>
>> Well, that's all I came up with. I'm going to keep hacking away at
>> this and hopefully you all have some feedback to improve this  
>> concept.
>>
>> --
>> EPA Rating: 3000 Lines of Code / Gallon (of coffee)
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com  Mon Jul 23 22:03:21 2007
From: mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com (Scott Taylor)
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:03:21 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Dealing with nested/namespaced classes w/ describe
Message-ID: <3CC6E547-43F5-4DA7-80CD-2A38DA6799F9@railsnewbie.com>


Hi all,

Just wondering about this:  I've been dealing with classes/modules  
nested in several layers of namespaces.  Here would be an example of  
a describe block:

describe ClassOne::ClassTwo::ClassThree, "description here" do
...
end

What would be the easiest way to write something a little more terse,  
like:

describe ClassThree, "description here" do
...
end

If this has come up before, just tell me to google.

Thanks for your time,

Scott Taylor


From philodespotos at gmail.com  Mon Jul 23 22:15:29 2007
From: philodespotos at gmail.com (Kyle Hargraves)
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:15:29 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Dealing with nested/namespaced classes w/ describe
In-Reply-To: <3CC6E547-43F5-4DA7-80CD-2A38DA6799F9@railsnewbie.com>
References: <3CC6E547-43F5-4DA7-80CD-2A38DA6799F9@railsnewbie.com>
Message-ID: <46A560C1.503@gmail.com>

Scott Taylor wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Just wondering about this:  I've been dealing with classes/modules  
> nested in several layers of namespaces.  Here would be an example of  
> a describe block:
> 
> describe ClassOne::ClassTwo::ClassThree, "description here" do
> ...
> end
> 
> What would be the easiest way to write something a little more terse,  
> like:
> 
> describe ClassThree, "description here" do
> ...
> end
> 
> If this has come up before, just tell me to google.
> 
> Thanks for your time,
> 
> Scott Taylor

You can put the descriptions inside of modules. AFAICT, this has no 
effect on how anything functions, it just lets you drop the namespacing 
ugliness from your code:

module SomeProject
   class SomeClass
   end
end

module SomeProject

describe SomeClass, "something or other" do
end

end

Kyle

From mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com  Tue Jul 24 00:12:36 2007
From: mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com (Scott Taylor)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 00:12:36 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Dealing with nested/namespaced classes w/ describe
In-Reply-To: <46A560C1.503@gmail.com>
References: <3CC6E547-43F5-4DA7-80CD-2A38DA6799F9@railsnewbie.com>
	<46A560C1.503@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <112289E4-0A2B-4107-9838-4C0380664F32@railsnewbie.com>

Ah.  Thank you.  That is just a wonderful solution.  Much better than  
the solution of redefining a new constant.

Best,

Scott


On Jul 23, 2007, at 10:15 PM, Kyle Hargraves wrote:

> Scott Taylor wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Just wondering about this:  I've been dealing with classes/modules
>> nested in several layers of namespaces.  Here would be an example of
>> a describe block:
>>
>> describe ClassOne::ClassTwo::ClassThree, "description here" do
>> ...
>> end
>>
>> What would be the easiest way to write something a little more terse,
>> like:
>>
>> describe ClassThree, "description here" do
>> ...
>> end
>>
>> If this has come up before, just tell me to google.
>>
>> Thanks for your time,
>>
>> Scott Taylor
>
> You can put the descriptions inside of modules. AFAICT, this has no
> effect on how anything functions, it just lets you drop the  
> namespacing
> ugliness from your code:
>
> module SomeProject
>    class SomeClass
>    end
> end
>
> module SomeProject
>
> describe SomeClass, "something or other" do
> end
>
> end
>
> Kyle
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From raasdnil at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 07:53:18 2007
From: raasdnil at gmail.com (Mikel Lindsaar)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:53:18 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking Resolv::DNS?
Message-ID: <57a815bf0707240453p65d016b2w8addcb05539bf66d@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Rspecers,

I have a rails project where I am calling Resolv::DNS.open and then
using the block to check a domain name.

The code snippet in question is:

   domain = "mytest.com"
   Resolv::DNS.open do |dns|
     @mx = dns.getresources(domain, Resolv::DNS::Resource::IN::MX)
   end

I obviously want to stub this out, especially for speed but can't
quite work out how.

I have done:

>From what I can tell, Resolv::DNS first is receiving :open and it will
then be yielding instances of Resolv::DNS to be using inside the
block.

So, my last unsuccessfull attempt at mocking this out is:

    @dns = mock(Resolv::DNS)
    Resolv::DNS.should_receive(:open).and_return([@dns])
    @dns.should_receive(:getresources).and_return("MX Record")

The errors I am getting are not about mocks receiving unexpected
messages.  The :open message mock gets called.  The second one (on
@dns.should_receive(:getresources) also does not complain.

But @mx in the above code ends up as nil, when I would think it should
end up as "MX Record".

Any pointers?

Regards

Mikel

--
http://www.blognow.com.au/q

From pergesu at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 08:12:54 2007
From: pergesu at gmail.com (Pat Maddox)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:12:54 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking Resolv::DNS?
In-Reply-To: <57a815bf0707240453p65d016b2w8addcb05539bf66d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57a815bf0707240453p65d016b2w8addcb05539bf66d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <810a540e0707240512u1968f5dek156ca312e441ef9b@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/24/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Rspecers,
>
> I have a rails project where I am calling Resolv::DNS.open and then
> using the block to check a domain name.
>
> The code snippet in question is:
>
>    domain = "mytest.com"
>    Resolv::DNS.open do |dns|
>      @mx = dns.getresources(domain, Resolv::DNS::Resource::IN::MX)
>    end
>
> I obviously want to stub this out, especially for speed but can't
> quite work out how.
>
> I have done:
>
> >From what I can tell, Resolv::DNS first is receiving :open and it will
> then be yielding instances of Resolv::DNS to be using inside the
> block.
>
> So, my last unsuccessfull attempt at mocking this out is:
>
>     @dns = mock(Resolv::DNS)
>     Resolv::DNS.should_receive(:open).and_return([@dns])
>     @dns.should_receive(:getresources).and_return("MX Record")
>
> The errors I am getting are not about mocks receiving unexpected
> messages.  The :open message mock gets called.  The second one (on
> @dns.should_receive(:getresources) also does not complain.
>
> But @mx in the above code ends up as nil, when I would think it should
> end up as "MX Record".
>
> Any pointers?
>
> Regards
>
> Mikel
>
> --
> http://www.blognow.com.au/q
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

I'm not sure if this will work, but try

Resolv::DNS.should_receive(:open).and_yield(@dns)

Pat

From raasdnil at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 09:02:38 2007
From: raasdnil at gmail.com (Mikel Lindsaar)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:02:38 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking Resolv::DNS?
In-Reply-To: <810a540e0707240512u1968f5dek156ca312e441ef9b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57a815bf0707240453p65d016b2w8addcb05539bf66d@mail.gmail.com>
	<810a540e0707240512u1968f5dek156ca312e441ef9b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57a815bf0707240602n4df6eaddj7c78ec43b627233a@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you, works perfectly!

Regards

Mikel

On 7/24/07, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/24/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello Rspecers,
> >
> > I have a rails project where I am calling Resolv::DNS.open and then
> > using the block to check a domain name.
> >
> > The code snippet in question is:
> >
> >    domain = "mytest.com"
> >    Resolv::DNS.open do |dns|
> >      @mx = dns.getresources(domain, Resolv::DNS::Resource::IN::MX)
> >    end
> >
> > I obviously want to stub this out, especially for speed but can't
> > quite work out how.
> >
> > I have done:
> >
> > >From what I can tell, Resolv::DNS first is receiving :open and it will
> > then be yielding instances of Resolv::DNS to be using inside the
> > block.
> >
> > So, my last unsuccessfull attempt at mocking this out is:
> >
> >     @dns = mock(Resolv::DNS)
> >     Resolv::DNS.should_receive(:open).and_return([@dns])
> >     @dns.should_receive(:getresources).and_return("MX Record")
> >
> > The errors I am getting are not about mocks receiving unexpected
> > messages.  The :open message mock gets called.  The second one (on
> > @dns.should_receive(:getresources) also does not complain.
> >
> > But @mx in the above code ends up as nil, when I would think it should
> > end up as "MX Record".
> >
> > Any pointers?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Mikel
> >
> > --
> > http://www.blognow.com.au/q
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
>
> I'm not sure if this will work, but try
>
> Resolv::DNS.should_receive(:open).and_yield(@dns)
>
> Pat
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From has.sox at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 09:07:30 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:07:30 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Mock or Stub strategy for validates_uniqueness_of
Message-ID: <2fff50390707240607x7686c9e3u6779c8e09ff38305@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm a bit stuck with mocking a unit test of a join model with regards to a
validates_uniqueness_of clause.

I have

class Book < AR:B
  has_many :clippings
  various validates_presence_of etc
end

class Clip <  AR:B
  has_many :clippings
  various validates_presence_of etc
end

class Clipping < AR:B
  belongs_to :book
  belongs_to :clip

  validates_uniqueness_of :clip_id, :scope => :book_id
end

What I want to do is just confirm that the validates uniqueness_of clause is
set and functioning correctly in the spec for the clipping model.

So if I was using fixtures I would do something like

it "should not allow duplicate clips in the same book" do
  clip = clips( :some_clip )
  book = books( :some_book )

  lambda do
    clipping = Clipping.create( :clip => clip, :book => book )
  end.should change( Clipping, :count ).by( 1 )

  lambda do
    clipping = Clipping.create( :clip => clip, :book => )
    clipping.should_not be_valid
  end.should_not change( Clipping, :count )

end

Any hints as to how to do this without using fixtures?

Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070724/d3118a91/attachment-0001.html 

From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Tue Jul 24 09:42:20 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:42:20 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Mock or Stub strategy for validates_uniqueness_of
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707240607x7686c9e3u6779c8e09ff38305@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707240607x7686c9e3u6779c8e09ff38305@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2C4C4237-7B54-44AD-A1F5-3C3E16A1CDE2@ashleymoran.me.uk>


On 24 Jul 2007, at 14:07, Daniel N wrote:

> Any hints as to how to do this without using fixtures?

I did this literally minutes ago.  I don't use fixtures at all,  
ever.  Instead I put the data in the before block, eg:

describe Purchase, "assigned to a Quote that already has a saved  
purchase" do
   before(:each) do
     @dealer = Dealer.create!(:name =>  
"Dealer1", :external_identifier => "D123")
     @site = Site.create!(:hostname => "my.host.name", :dealer =>  
@dealer)

     @provider = Provider.create!(:name => "Provider1")
     @product = Product.create!(:name => "Product1", :provider =>  
@provider)
     @applicant = Applicant.create!(:first_name => "Fred", :last_name  
=> "Flinstone", :email => "fred at flinstone.com", :telephone_home =>  
"01782 123456")
     @quote_parameters = QuoteParameters.create!(:term =>  
36, :applicant => @applicant, :product => @product, :site => @site)
     @quote = InsuranceQuote.create!(:valid_until =>  
1.days.from_now, :quote_parameters => @quote_parameters, :premium =>  
250)
     Purchase.create!(:quote => @quote, :amount_financed => 200)
   end

   it "should be invalid" do
     purchase = Purchase.new(:quote =>  
@quote, :amount_collected_by_card => "value")
     purchase.should_not be_valid
     purchase.errors.on(:quote_id).should_not be_nil
   end
end

Comments welcome on whether this is a good way to do this.  (I know  
that the above doesn't test my database unique constraint, which I  
don't do in this case come to think of it, but I try to keep DB specs  
separate, hard as that may be sometimes.)

Ashley





From has.sox at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 09:49:47 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:49:47 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Mock or Stub strategy for validates_uniqueness_of
In-Reply-To: <2C4C4237-7B54-44AD-A1F5-3C3E16A1CDE2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
References: <2fff50390707240607x7686c9e3u6779c8e09ff38305@mail.gmail.com>
	<2C4C4237-7B54-44AD-A1F5-3C3E16A1CDE2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707240649s7a4e35fbi99b5c091369f607d@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/24/07, Ashley Moran <work at ashleymoran.me.uk> wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Jul 2007, at 14:07, Daniel N wrote:
>
> > Any hints as to how to do this without using fixtures?
>
> I did this literally minutes ago.  I don't use fixtures at all,
> ever.  Instead I put the data in the before block, eg:
>
> describe Purchase, "assigned to a Quote that already has a saved
> purchase" do
>    before(:each) do
>      @dealer = Dealer.create!(:name =>
> "Dealer1", :external_identifier => "D123")
>      @site = Site.create!(:hostname => "my.host.name", :dealer =>
> @dealer)
>
>      @provider = Provider.create!(:name => "Provider1")
>      @product = Product.create!(:name => "Product1", :provider =>
> @provider)
>      @applicant = Applicant.create!(:first_name => "Fred", :last_name
> => "Flinstone", :email => "fred at flinstone.com", :telephone_home =>
> "01782 123456")
>      @quote_parameters = QuoteParameters.create!(:term =>
> 36, :applicant => @applicant, :product => @product, :site => @site)
>      @quote = InsuranceQuote.create!(:valid_until =>
> 1.days.from_now, :quote_parameters => @quote_parameters, :premium =>
> 250)
>      Purchase.create!(:quote => @quote, :amount_financed => 200)
>    end
>
>    it "should be invalid" do
>      purchase = Purchase.new(:quote =>
> @quote, :amount_collected_by_card => "value")
>      purchase.should_not be_valid
>      purchase.errors.on(:quote_id).should_not be_nil
>    end
> end
>
> Comments welcome on whether this is a good way to do this.  (I know
> that the above doesn't test my database unique constraint, which I
> don't do in this case come to think of it, but I try to keep DB specs
> separate, hard as that may be sometimes.)
>
> Ashley


That looks like the kind of thing I was initially thinking of, but I started
to think that having all those objects being created in a non-related spec
could lead to trouble.  If I change what makes any of those objects valid,
these supposedly unrelated specs will then break.

I want to try and keep everything seperate, but in this case it seems that
things are interdependent.

Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070724/53e8aedd/attachment.html 

From has.sox at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 10:29:50 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:29:50 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Possible Bug
Message-ID: <2fff50390707240729n77ec5179w5de2302cc6abb5f1@mail.gmail.com>

I'm trying to test some code that has validates each and I've got a very
strange failure

Mock 'Book_1027' expected :store_with_privacy? with (#<Clip:0x1a99b96
@name="Clip_1025">) but received it with (#<Clip:0x1a99b96
@name="Clip_1025">)

The Spec

  it "should check that a book can save a clip" do
    @user = mock_model( User, :id => 3  )
    @clip = mock_model( Clip, :id => 1, :privacy => :public, :user => @user
)
    @book = mock_model( Book, :id => 2, :privacy => :public, :user => @user,
:user_id => @user.id  )

    @book.should_receive( :store_with_privacy? ).with( @clip )

    clipping = Clipping.new( valid_clipping_attributes.with( :clip => @clip,
:book => @book ) )
    clipping.valid?
end

And the model

class Clipping < AR:B
belongs_to :clip
belongs_to :book
...

  validates_each :clip do |model, attr, value|
    if !model.book.nil? && !model.clip.nil?
      if !model.book.store_with_privacy?( model.clip )
        model.errors.add( :clip, "You can't add this item to this book" )
      end
    end
  end

...
end

Any thoughts on what might be causing that?

Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070725/dd9d8127/attachment.html 

From has.sox at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 10:40:41 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:40:41 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Mock or Stub strategy for validates_uniqueness_of
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707240649s7a4e35fbi99b5c091369f607d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707240607x7686c9e3u6779c8e09ff38305@mail.gmail.com>
	<2C4C4237-7B54-44AD-A1F5-3C3E16A1CDE2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2fff50390707240649s7a4e35fbi99b5c091369f607d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707240740y22ac9647v9dd18bb0c97e778e@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/24/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/24/07, Ashley Moran <work at ashleymoran.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 24 Jul 2007, at 14:07, Daniel N wrote:
> >
> > > Any hints as to how to do this without using fixtures?
> >
> > I did this literally minutes ago.  I don't use fixtures at all,
> > ever.  Instead I put the data in the before block, eg:
> >
> > describe Purchase, "assigned to a Quote that already has a saved
> > purchase" do
> >    before(:each) do
> >      @dealer = Dealer.create!(:name =>
> > "Dealer1", :external_identifier => "D123")
> >      @site = Site.create!(:hostname => "my.host.name", :dealer =>
> > @dealer)
> >
> >      @provider = Provider.create!(:name => "Provider1")
> >      @product = Product.create!(:name => "Product1", :provider =>
> > @provider)
> >      @applicant = Applicant.create!(:first_name => "Fred", :last_name
> > => "Flinstone", :email => " fred at flinstone.com", :telephone_home =>
> > "01782 123456")
> >      @quote_parameters = QuoteParameters.create!(:term =>
> > 36, :applicant => @applicant, :product => @product, :site => @site)
> >      @quote = InsuranceQuote.create!(:valid_until =>
> > 1.days.from_now, :quote_parameters => @quote_parameters, :premium =>
> > 250)
> >      Purchase.create!(:quote => @quote, :amount_financed => 200)
> >    end
> >
> >    it "should be invalid" do
> >      purchase = Purchase.new(:quote =>
> > @quote, :amount_collected_by_card => "value")
> >      purchase.should_not be_valid
> >      purchase.errors.on (:quote_id).should_not be_nil
> >    end
> > end
> >
> > Comments welcome on whether this is a good way to do this.  (I know
> > that the above doesn't test my database unique constraint, which I
> > don't do in this case come to think of it, but I try to keep DB specs
> > separate, hard as that may be sometimes.)
> >
> > Ashley
>
>
> That looks like the kind of thing I was initially thinking of, but I
> started to think that having all those objects being created in a
> non-related spec could lead to trouble.  If I change what makes any of those
> objects valid, these supposedly unrelated specs will then break.
>
> I want to try and keep everything seperate, but in this case it seems that
> things are interdependent.
>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>

What I've ended up doing is the following test

  it "should have a uniq clip_id for a given book" do
    lambda do
      Clipping.create( valid_clipping_attributes )
      Clipping.create( valid_clipping_attributes )
    end.should change( Clipping, :count ).by( 1 )
  end

It hits the database, but the valid_clipping_attributes are mocks that are
used throughout the spec so it's divorced from the other specs.

If there are any better ideas I'm open to them.

Thanx for the response Ashley.

Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070725/d701aec4/attachment.html 

From has.sox at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 10:45:56 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:45:56 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Possible Bug
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707240729n77ec5179w5de2302cc6abb5f1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707240729n77ec5179w5de2302cc6abb5f1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707240745s170949fcpf6870f863b4b0cd3@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/25/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm trying to test some code that has validates each and I've got a very
> strange failure
>
> Mock 'Book_1027' expected :store_with_privacy? with (#<Clip:0x1a99b96
> @name="Clip_1025">) but received it with (#<Clip:0x1a99b96
> @name="Clip_1025">)
>
> The Spec
>
>   it "should check that a book can save a clip" do
>     @user = mock_model( User, :id => 3  )
>     @clip = mock_model( Clip, :id => 1, :privacy => :public, :user =>
> @user  )
>     @book = mock_model( Book, :id => 2, :privacy => :public, :user =>
> @user, :user_id => @user.id  )
>
>     @book.should_receive( :store_with_privacy? ).with( @clip )
>
>     clipping = Clipping.new( valid_clipping_attributes.with( :clip =>
> @clip, :book => @book ) )
>     clipping.valid?
> end
>
> And the model
>
> class Clipping < AR:B
> belongs_to :clip
> belongs_to :book
> ...
>
>   validates_each :clip do |model, attr, value|
>     if !model.book.nil? && !model.clip.nil?
>       if !model.book.store_with_privacy?( model.clip )
>         model.errors.add( :clip, "You can't add this item to this book" )
>       end
>     end
>   end
>
> ...
> end
>
> Any thoughts on what might be causing that?
>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>


I've also found that by stubbing the @book.store_with_privacy? in a before
block, and then having an example that just mocks that method

    @book.should_receive( :store_with_privacy? ).with( @clip )

makes it act differently.  In this case I get

Mock 'Book_1026' expected :store_with_privacy? with (#<Clip:0x1a92aee
@name="Clip_1025">) once, but received it 0 times

It seems that the stub is taking precedence over the should_receive call.

Is this expected behaviour?

Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070725/4f74b415/attachment-0001.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 11:01:48 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:01:48 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Possible Bug
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707240745s170949fcpf6870f863b4b0cd3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707240729n77ec5179w5de2302cc6abb5f1@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707240745s170949fcpf6870f863b4b0cd3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707240801l1ca0625l4f8d36a986effe9d@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/24/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/25/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm trying to test some code that has validates each and I've got a very
> strange failure
> >
> > Mock 'Book_1027' expected :store_with_privacy? with (#<Clip:0x1a99b96
> @name="Clip_1025">) but received it with (#<Clip:0x1a99b96
> @name="Clip_1025">)
> >
> > The Spec
> >
> >   it "should check that a book can save a clip" do
> >     @user = mock_model( User, :id => 3  )
> >     @clip = mock_model( Clip, :id => 1, :privacy => :public, :user =>
> @user  )
> >     @book = mock_model( Book, :id => 2, :privacy => :public, :user =>
> @user, :user_id => @user.id  )
> >
> >     @book.should_receive( :store_with_privacy? ).with( @clip )
> >
> >     clipping = Clipping.new( valid_clipping_attributes.with( :clip =>
> @clip, :book => @book ) )
> >     clipping.valid?
> > end
> >
> > And the model
> >
> > class Clipping < AR:B
> > belongs_to :clip
> > belongs_to :book
> > ...
> >
> >   validates_each :clip do |model, attr, value|
> >     if !model.book.nil? && !model.clip.nil?
> >       if !model.book.store_with_privacy?( model.clip )
> >         model.errors.add( :clip, "You can't add this item to this book" )
> >       end
> >     end
> >   end
> >
> > ...
> > end
> >
> > Any thoughts on what might be causing that?
> >
> > Cheers
> > Daniel
> >
>
>
> I've also found that by stubbing the @book.store_with_privacy? in a before
> block, and then having an example that just mocks that method
>
>     @book.should_receive( :store_with_privacy? ).with( @clip )
>
> makes it act differently.  In this case I get
>
> Mock 'Book_1026' expected :store_with_privacy? with (#<Clip:0x1a92aee
> @name="Clip_1025">) once, but received it 0 times
>
> It seems that the stub is taking precedence over the should_receive call.
>
> Is this expected behaviour?

Absolutely not. Please submit a bug report to the tracker on this,
with the examples you have here.

http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?group_id=797

Thanks,
David

>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From has.sox at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 11:18:00 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:18:00 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Possible Bug
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707240801l1ca0625l4f8d36a986effe9d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707240729n77ec5179w5de2302cc6abb5f1@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707240745s170949fcpf6870f863b4b0cd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707240801l1ca0625l4f8d36a986effe9d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707240818s40ae2d43x2f4443baf35c84fd@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/25/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/24/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 7/25/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm trying to test some code that has validates each and I've got a
> very
> > strange failure
> > >
> > > Mock 'Book_1027' expected :store_with_privacy? with (#<Clip:0x1a99b96
> > @name="Clip_1025">) but received it with (#<Clip:0x1a99b96
> > @name="Clip_1025">)
> > >
> > > The Spec
> > >
> > >   it "should check that a book can save a clip" do
> > >     @user = mock_model( User, :id => 3  )
> > >     @clip = mock_model( Clip, :id => 1, :privacy => :public, :user =>
> > @user  )
> > >     @book = mock_model( Book, :id => 2, :privacy => :public, :user =>
> > @user, :user_id => @user.id  )
> > >
> > >     @book.should_receive( :store_with_privacy? ).with( @clip )
> > >
> > >     clipping = Clipping.new( valid_clipping_attributes.with( :clip =>
> > @clip, :book => @book ) )
> > >     clipping.valid?
> > > end
> > >
> > > And the model
> > >
> > > class Clipping < AR:B
> > > belongs_to :clip
> > > belongs_to :book
> > > ...
> > >
> > >   validates_each :clip do |model, attr, value|
> > >     if !model.book.nil? && !model.clip.nil?
> > >       if !model.book.store_with_privacy?( model.clip )
> > >         model.errors.add( :clip, "You can't add this item to this
> book" )
> > >       end
> > >     end
> > >   end
> > >
> > > ...
> > > end
> > >
> > > Any thoughts on what might be causing that?
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Daniel
> > >
> >
> >
> > I've also found that by stubbing the @book.store_with_privacy? in a
> before
> > block, and then having an example that just mocks that method
> >
> >     @book.should_receive( :store_with_privacy? ).with( @clip )
> >
> > makes it act differently.  In this case I get
> >
> > Mock 'Book_1026' expected :store_with_privacy? with (#<Clip:0x1a92aee
> > @name="Clip_1025">) once, but received it 0 times
> >
> > It seems that the stub is taking precedence over the should_receive
> call.
> >
> > Is this expected behaviour?
>
> Absolutely not. Please submit a bug report to the tracker on this,
> with the examples you have here.
>
> http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?group_id=797
>
> Thanks,
> David


Done
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070725/74ed489c/attachment.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 11:25:20 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:25:20 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Possible Bug
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707240818s40ae2d43x2f4443baf35c84fd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707240729n77ec5179w5de2302cc6abb5f1@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707240745s170949fcpf6870f863b4b0cd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707240801l1ca0625l4f8d36a986effe9d@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707240818s40ae2d43x2f4443baf35c84fd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707240825y64489bd9m29ebf3528366a0ce@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/24/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/25/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/24/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/25/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm trying to test some code that has validates each and I've got a
> very
> > > strange failure
> > > >
> > > > Mock 'Book_1027' expected :store_with_privacy? with (#<Clip:0x1a99b96
> > > @name="Clip_1025">) but received it with (#<Clip:0x1a99b96
> > > @name="Clip_1025">)
> > > >
> > > > The Spec
> > > >
> > > >   it "should check that a book can save a clip" do
> > > >     @user = mock_model( User, :id => 3  )
> > > >     @clip = mock_model( Clip, :id => 1, :privacy => :public, :user =>
> > > @user  )
> > > >     @book = mock_model( Book, :id => 2, :privacy => :public, :user =>
> > > @user, :user_id => @user.id  )
> > > >
> > > >     @book.should_receive ( :store_with_privacy? ).with( @clip )
> > > >
> > > >     clipping = Clipping.new( valid_clipping_attributes.with( :clip =>
> > > @clip, :book => @book ) )
> > > >     clipping.valid?
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > > And the model
> > > >
> > > > class Clipping < AR:B
> > > > belongs_to :clip
> > > > belongs_to :book
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > >   validates_each :clip do |model, attr, value|
> > > >     if !model.book.nil? && !model.clip.nil?
> > > >       if !model.book.store_with_privacy?( model.clip
> )
> > > >         model.errors.add( :clip, "You can't add this item to this
> book" )
> > > >       end
> > > >     end
> > > >   end
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts on what might be causing that?
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Daniel
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've also found that by stubbing the @book.store_with_privacy? in a
> before
> > > block, and then having an example that just mocks that method
> > >
> > >     @book.should_receive ( :store_with_privacy? ).with( @clip )
> > >
> > > makes it act differently.  In this case I get
> > >
> > > Mock 'Book_1026' expected :store_with_privacy? with (#<Clip:0x1a92aee
> > > @name="Clip_1025">) once, but received it 0 times
> > >
> > > It seems that the stub is taking precedence over the should_receive
> call.
> > >
> > > Is this expected behaviour?
> >
> > Absolutely not. Please submit a bug report to the tracker on this,
> > with the examples you have here.
> >
> > http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?group_id=797
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
>
> Done

Thanks

>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From epugh at opensourceconnections.com  Tue Jul 24 16:26:05 2007
From: epugh at opensourceconnections.com (Eric Pugh)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:26:05 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Rspec on rails with out database?
Message-ID: <3ED1F6E8-5ABF-470C-A1E6-1BC920A5CB85@opensourceconnections.com>

Hi all,

I am trying to use rspec_on_rails in a Rails app that doesn't have a  
database.  so far I have just been faking it out by dumping in a  
sqlite3 database just to make Rails happy.

I was using for test::unit a rake task that eliminated the calls to  
database prep:

# Added this .rake file to keep Rake happy without a database.
# Remove once a database is in the picture.
["test:units", "test:functionals", "test:integration", "recent"].each  
do |name|
   Rake::Task[name].prerequisites.clear
end


However, adding the spec:models etc doesn't work, I get a "Don't know  
how to build task 'spec:models'" error...

What is the right way of faking out the database?   Using one of the  
Mock frameworks?

Eric

-------------------------------------------------------
Principal
OpenSource Connections
Site: http://www.opensourceconnections.com
Blog: http://blog.opensourceconnections.com
Cell: 1-434-466-1467





From carpeaqua at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 17:46:23 2007
From: carpeaqua at gmail.com (Justin Williams)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:46:23 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking Access Control
Message-ID: <981f96b60707241446sfa91203j5a8f804f9007f346@mail.gmail.com>

I'm trying to jump on the TDD/BDD bandwagon, but am having trouble
understanding how i should mock my user.  The user has a habtm
relationship to a roles model (acl_system2 plugin), but I'm not sure
how to tell rspec about a model.

My code:

describe UsersController do
  integrate_views

  before(:each) do
    @user = mock_model(User)
    @user.stub!(:new_record?).and_return(false)
    @user.stub!(:id).and_return(666)
    @user.stub!(:email).and_return("john at doe.com")
    @user.stub!(:password).and_return("dummypassword")
    User.stub!(:new).and_return(@user)
  end

  it "should login as a tutor" do
    @user.stub!(:type).and_return("Tutor")
    post :login, {:login => {:email => "teamup at teamup.host", :password
=> "teamup"}}
    response.should redirect_to(:controller => "toolkit/overview",
:action => "index")
    should_be_logged_in
  end

  it "should logout" do
    get :logout
    response.should redirect_to(:controller => "users", :action => "login")
    should_not_be_logged_in
  end

  protected

  def should_be_logged_in
    response.session.should_not be_nil
    session[:user].should_not be_nil
  end

  def should_not_be_logged_in
    response.session.should_not be_nil
    session[:user].should be_nil
  end
end

Unfortunately, the actual method its testing works fine, but my test
is getting the following error:

"expected redirect to {:action=>"index",
:controller=>"toolkit/overview"}, got no redirect"

I am pretty sure it is because I haven't set the role attribute, but
I'm not sure how to establish that relationship using stubs.  I tried
setting mock_model(User, :roles => mock(Role, :title => "tutor")) but
that didn't seem to matter.

Anyone able to shed some light on this for me?

Thanks.

-- 
-
Justin Williams
work: http://secondgearllc.com/
play: http://carpeaqua.com

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 17:51:49 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:51:49 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking Access Control
In-Reply-To: <981f96b60707241446sfa91203j5a8f804f9007f346@mail.gmail.com>
References: <981f96b60707241446sfa91203j5a8f804f9007f346@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707241451h619efac8m68e49ef6661b2002@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/24/07, Justin Williams <carpeaqua at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm trying to jump on the TDD/BDD bandwagon, but am having trouble
> understanding how i should mock my user.  The user has a habtm
> relationship to a roles model (acl_system2 plugin), but I'm not sure
> how to tell rspec about a model.
>
> My code:
>
> describe UsersController do
>   integrate_views
>
>   before(:each) do
>     @user = mock_model(User)
>     @user.stub!(:new_record?).and_return(false)
>     @user.stub!(:id).and_return(666)
>     @user.stub!(:email).and_return("john at doe.com")
>     @user.stub!(:password).and_return("dummypassword")
>     User.stub!(:new).and_return(@user)
>   end
>
>   it "should login as a tutor" do
>     @user.stub!(:type).and_return("Tutor")
>     post :login, {:login => {:email => "teamup at teamup.host", :password
> => "teamup"}}
>     response.should redirect_to(:controller => "toolkit/overview",
> :action => "index")
>     should_be_logged_in
>   end
>
>   it "should logout" do
>     get :logout
>     response.should redirect_to(:controller => "users", :action => "login")
>     should_not_be_logged_in
>   end
>
>   protected
>
>   def should_be_logged_in
>     response.session.should_not be_nil
>     session[:user].should_not be_nil
>   end
>
>   def should_not_be_logged_in
>     response.session.should_not be_nil
>     session[:user].should be_nil
>   end
> end
>
> Unfortunately, the actual method its testing works fine, but my test
> is getting the following error:
>
> "expected redirect to {:action=>"index",
> :controller=>"toolkit/overview"}, got no redirect"
>
> I am pretty sure it is because I haven't set the role attribute, but
> I'm not sure how to establish that relationship using stubs.  I tried
> setting mock_model(User, :roles => mock(Role, :title => "tutor")) but
> that didn't seem to matter.
>
> Anyone able to shed some light on this for me?

Would you please post the code for the actions as well?

>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> -
> Justin Williams
> work: http://secondgearllc.com/
> play: http://carpeaqua.com
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From rick.tessner at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 18:10:44 2007
From: rick.tessner at gmail.com (Rick Tessner)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:10:44 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] spec'ing helpers that use controller
Message-ID: <1185315044.11009.18.camel@localhost>

Hi all,

I'm in the process of creating rspecs for my helpers.  One of the
helpers in app/helpers/application_helper.rb looks like this:

        def page_name
          @page_name || "Define @page_name in
        #{controller.controller_name}::#{controller.action_name}"
        end

The rspec is simply:

        it "should something" do
          page_name
        end
        
Running ./script/spec  spec/helpers/application_helper_spec.rb produces:

        F
        
        1)
        NameError in 'ApplicationHelper hmmmm'
        undefined local variable or method `controller' for [RSpec
        example]:#<Class:0xb70de334>
        /path/trunk/config/../app/helpers/application_helper.rb:21:in
        `page_title'
        ./spec/helpers/application_helper_spec.rb:6:
        ./script/spec:4:
        
        Finished in 0.024011 seconds
        
        1 example, 1 failure

The helper spec doesn't know about "controller".  Would I have to mock
the controller?  If so, how?  If not, what would be the solution to
writing a spec for this or any helper that might use "controller"?

-- 
Rick
rick.tessner at gmail.com


From court3nay at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 18:26:35 2007
From: court3nay at gmail.com (Courtenay)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:26:35 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] spec'ing helpers that use controller
In-Reply-To: <1185315044.11009.18.camel@localhost>
References: <1185315044.11009.18.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <4b430c8f0707241526t24959384hb153795592339ea7@mail.gmail.com>

Does this work?

  ApplicationHelper.stub!(:controller).and_return mock('controller',
:controller_name => 'foo')


On 7/24/07, Rick Tessner <rick.tessner at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm in the process of creating rspecs for my helpers.  One of the
> helpers in app/helpers/application_helper.rb looks like this:
>
>         def page_name
>           @page_name || "Define @page_name in
>         #{controller.controller_name}::#{controller.action_name}"
>         end
>
> The rspec is simply:
>
>         it "should something" do
>           page_name
>         end
>
> Running ./script/spec  spec/helpers/application_helper_spec.rb produces:
>
>         F
>
>         1)
>         NameError in 'ApplicationHelper hmmmm'
>         undefined local variable or method `controller' for [RSpec
>         example]:#<Class:0xb70de334>
>         /path/trunk/config/../app/helpers/application_helper.rb:21:in
>         `page_title'
>         ./spec/helpers/application_helper_spec.rb:6:
>         ./script/spec:4:
>
>         Finished in 0.024011 seconds
>
>         1 example, 1 failure
>
> The helper spec doesn't know about "controller".  Would I have to mock
> the controller?  If so, how?  If not, what would be the solution to
> writing a spec for this or any helper that might use "controller"?
>
> --
> Rick
> rick.tessner at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From carpeaqua at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 18:33:37 2007
From: carpeaqua at gmail.com (Justin Williams)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:33:37 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking Access Control
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707241451h619efac8m68e49ef6661b2002@mail.gmail.com>
References: <981f96b60707241446sfa91203j5a8f804f9007f346@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707241451h619efac8m68e49ef6661b2002@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <981f96b60707241533j36cfdb90ifbb025bc6e85628e@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/24/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:

> Would you please post the code for the actions as well?

def login
  if request.post?
  begin
    session[:user] = User.authenticate(params[:login][:email],
params[:login][:password]).id

    if current_user.roles.include?(Role.find_by_title("employee")) or
current_user.roles.include?(Role.find_by_title("administrator"))
      redirect_to staff_path
    elsif current_user.roles.include?(Role.find_by_title("tutor"))
      redirect_to toolkit_path
    elsif current_user.roles.include?(Role.find_by_title("client"))
      redirect_to client_path
    end
   rescue
     flash[:warning] = "Your e-mail address or password is invalid."
     render :action => "login"
   end
  end
end


It should also be noted, I realized the specs have two different sets
of credentials.  Modifying this to use a single one doesn't correct
it.  I was just a bit too liberal in my cut/pasting for email.

Thanks!

- j

From rick.tessner at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 18:37:21 2007
From: rick.tessner at gmail.com (Rick Tessner)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:37:21 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] spec'ing helpers that use controller
In-Reply-To: <4b430c8f0707241526t24959384hb153795592339ea7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1185315044.11009.18.camel@localhost>
	<4b430c8f0707241526t24959384hb153795592339ea7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1185316641.11009.21.camel@localhost>

Hi,

On Tue, 2007-24-07 at 15:26 -0700, Courtenay wrote:
> Does this work?
> 
>   ApplicationHelper.stub!(:controller).and_return mock('controller',
> :controller_name => 'foo')

Sadly, no.  Same result:

        undefined local variable or method `controller' for [RSpec
        example]: #<Class:0xb7149760>

-- 
Rick
rick.tessner at gmail.com


From raasdnil at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 19:16:33 2007
From: raasdnil at gmail.com (Mikel Lindsaar)
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:16:33 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Mock or Stub strategy for validates_uniqueness_of
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707240740y22ac9647v9dd18bb0c97e778e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707240607x7686c9e3u6779c8e09ff38305@mail.gmail.com>
	<2C4C4237-7B54-44AD-A1F5-3C3E16A1CDE2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2fff50390707240649s7a4e35fbi99b5c091369f607d@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707240740y22ac9647v9dd18bb0c97e778e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57a815bf0707241616u7f484c30w39b2c9044a1a6dd3@mail.gmail.com>

There would be a different way.

In the idea of "Only test the code you write" all you really need to
spec is that you have set the right association, because activerecord
has it's own tests to ensure the uniq call works.

You can do this with a call to reflect_on_association.  Unfortunately
that call does not return a hash, but an association object.

I wrote a blog post on how to do this easily with a spec_helper.rb
method that adds to_hash to reflect on association.

http://www.blognow.com.au/q/67540/Reflect_on_association_one_liner_to_check_association_details.html

In the end you end up with a spec that looks like this:

 it "should test reflection details" do

    association_results = {
      :macro => :has_many,
      :options => {:through => :clipping, :uniq => true},
      :class_name => "nil"
    }

    Book.reflect_on_association(:clip).to_hash.should == association_results

  end


Of course, you can add whatever values you want into the hash.

I now have one of these specs at the top of pretty much every model
spec.  Just set up the hash with all your association rules and then
this can be checked and kept track of when you are refactoring or
changing code.

Hope that helps.

Regards

Mikel


On 7/25/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/24/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/24/07, Ashley Moran < work at ashleymoran.me.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 24 Jul 2007, at 14:07, Daniel N wrote:
> > >
> > > > Any hints as to how to do this without using fixtures?
> > >
> > > I did this literally minutes ago.  I don't use fixtures at all,
> > > ever.  Instead I put the data in the before block, eg:
> > >
> > > describe Purchase, "assigned to a Quote that already has a saved
> > > purchase" do
> > >    before(:each) do
> > >      @dealer = Dealer.create!(:name =>
> > > "Dealer1", :external_identifier => "D123")
> > >      @site = Site.create!(:hostname => "my.host.name", :dealer =>
> > > @dealer)
> > >
> > >      @provider = Provider.create!(:name => "Provider1")
> > >      @product = Product.create!(:name => "Product1", :provider =>
> > > @provider)
> > >      @applicant = Applicant.create!(:first_name => "Fred", :last_name
> > > => "Flinstone", :email => " fred at flinstone.com", :telephone_home =>
> > > "01782 123456")
> > >      @quote_parameters = QuoteParameters.create!(:term =>
> > > 36, :applicant => @applicant, :product => @product, :site => @site)
> > >      @quote = InsuranceQuote.create!(:valid_until =>
> > > 1.days.from_now, :quote_parameters => @quote_parameters, :premium =>
> > > 250)
> > >      Purchase.create!(:quote => @quote, :amount_financed => 200)
> > >    end
> > >
> > >    it "should be invalid" do
> > >      purchase = Purchase.new(:quote =>
> > > @quote, :amount_collected_by_card => "value")
> > >      purchase.should_not be_valid
> > >      purchase.errors.on (:quote_id).should_not be_nil
> > >    end
> > > end
> > >
> > > Comments welcome on whether this is a good way to do this.  (I know
> > > that the above doesn't test my database unique constraint, which I
> > > don't do in this case come to think of it, but I try to keep DB specs
> > > separate, hard as that may be sometimes.)
> > >
> > > Ashley
> >
> >
> > That looks like the kind of thing I was initially thinking of, but I
> started to think that having all those objects being created in a
> non-related spec could lead to trouble.  If I change what makes any of those
> objects valid, these supposedly unrelated specs will then break.
> >
> > I want to try and keep everything seperate, but in this case it seems that
> things are interdependent.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Daniel
>
> What I've ended up doing is the following test
>
>   it "should have a uniq clip_id for a given book" do
>     lambda do
>       Clipping.create( valid_clipping_attributes )
>       Clipping.create( valid_clipping_attributes )
>     end.should change( Clipping, :count ).by( 1 )
>   end
>
> It hits the database, but the valid_clipping_attributes are mocks that are
> used throughout the spec so it's divorced from the other specs.
>
> If there are any better ideas I'm open to them.
>
> Thanx for the response Ashley.
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From court3nay at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 19:30:03 2007
From: court3nay at gmail.com (Courtenay)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:30:03 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] spec'ing helpers that use controller
In-Reply-To: <1185316641.11009.21.camel@localhost>
References: <1185315044.11009.18.camel@localhost>
	<4b430c8f0707241526t24959384hb153795592339ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<1185316641.11009.21.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <4b430c8f0707241630v72d4ff78ledf155cdf594ada4@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/24/07, Rick Tessner <rick.tessner at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 2007-24-07 at 15:26 -0700, Courtenay wrote:
> > Does this work?
> >
> >   ApplicationHelper.stub!(:controller).and_return mock('controller',
> > :controller_name => 'foo')
>
> Sadly, no.  Same result:
>
>         undefined local variable or method `controller' for [RSpec
>         example]: #<Class:0xb7149760>

specing helpers just includes the module in your spec.

So you can cheat like

describe "Application Helper" do
  helper_name :application

  def controller
    @controller
  end

  before(:each) do
    @controller = mock('controller')
  end

  it "should blah blah" do
  end

end

From has.sox at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 19:46:57 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:46:57 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Mock or Stub strategy for validates_uniqueness_of
In-Reply-To: <57a815bf0707241616u7f484c30w39b2c9044a1a6dd3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707240607x7686c9e3u6779c8e09ff38305@mail.gmail.com>
	<2C4C4237-7B54-44AD-A1F5-3C3E16A1CDE2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2fff50390707240649s7a4e35fbi99b5c091369f607d@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707240740y22ac9647v9dd18bb0c97e778e@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707241616u7f484c30w39b2c9044a1a6dd3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707241646i6183f887if425d1f6b3e92e01@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/25/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There would be a different way.
>
> In the idea of "Only test the code you write" all you really need to
> spec is that you have set the right association, because activerecord
> has it's own tests to ensure the uniq call works.
>
> You can do this with a call to reflect_on_association.  Unfortunately
> that call does not return a hash, but an association object.
>
> I wrote a blog post on how to do this easily with a spec_helper.rb
> method that adds to_hash to reflect on association.
>
>
> http://www.blognow.com.au/q/67540/Reflect_on_association_one_liner_to_check_association_details.html
>
> In the end you end up with a spec that looks like this:
>
> it "should test reflection details" do
>
>     association_results = {
>       :macro => :has_many,
>       :options => {:through => :clipping, :uniq => true},
>       :class_name => "nil"
>     }
>
>     Book.reflect_on_association(:clip).to_hash.should ==
> association_results
>
>   end
>
>
> Of course, you can add whatever values you want into the hash.
>
> I now have one of these specs at the top of pretty much every model
> spec.  Just set up the hash with all your association rules and then
> this can be checked and kept track of when you are refactoring or
> changing code.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Regards
>
> Mikel


Thanx Mikel.

I didn't even think of using a uniq on the has_many.  I was using a
validates_uniquness_of :scope => 'book_id'

I will definitley look into this one.

Thankyou
Daniel

On 7/25/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/24/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/24/07, Ashley Moran < work at ashleymoran.me.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 24 Jul 2007, at 14:07, Daniel N wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Any hints as to how to do this without using fixtures?
> > > >
> > > > I did this literally minutes ago.  I don't use fixtures at all,
> > > > ever.  Instead I put the data in the before block, eg:
> > > >
> > > > describe Purchase, "assigned to a Quote that already has a saved
> > > > purchase" do
> > > >    before(:each) do
> > > >      @dealer = Dealer.create!(:name =>
> > > > "Dealer1", :external_identifier => "D123")
> > > >      @site = Site.create!(:hostname => "my.host.name", :dealer =>
> > > > @dealer)
> > > >
> > > >      @provider = Provider.create!(:name => "Provider1")
> > > >      @product = Product.create!(:name => "Product1", :provider =>
> > > > @provider)
> > > >      @applicant = Applicant.create!(:first_name => "Fred",
> :last_name
> > > > => "Flinstone", :email => " fred at flinstone.com", :telephone_home =>
> > > > "01782 123456")
> > > >      @quote_parameters = QuoteParameters.create!(:term =>
> > > > 36, :applicant => @applicant, :product => @product, :site => @site)
> > > >      @quote = InsuranceQuote.create!(:valid_until =>
> > > > 1.days.from_now, :quote_parameters => @quote_parameters, :premium =>
> > > > 250)
> > > >      Purchase.create!(:quote => @quote, :amount_financed => 200)
> > > >    end
> > > >
> > > >    it "should be invalid" do
> > > >      purchase = Purchase.new(:quote =>
> > > > @quote, :amount_collected_by_card => "value")
> > > >      purchase.should_not be_valid
> > > >      purchase.errors.on (:quote_id).should_not be_nil
> > > >    end
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > > Comments welcome on whether this is a good way to do this.  (I know
> > > > that the above doesn't test my database unique constraint, which I
> > > > don't do in this case come to think of it, but I try to keep DB
> specs
> > > > separate, hard as that may be sometimes.)
> > > >
> > > > Ashley
> > >
> > >
> > > That looks like the kind of thing I was initially thinking of, but I
> > started to think that having all those objects being created in a
> > non-related spec could lead to trouble.  If I change what makes any of
> those
> > objects valid, these supposedly unrelated specs will then break.
> > >
> > > I want to try and keep everything seperate, but in this case it seems
> that
> > things are interdependent.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Daniel
> >
> > What I've ended up doing is the following test
> >
> >   it "should have a uniq clip_id for a given book" do
> >     lambda do
> >       Clipping.create( valid_clipping_attributes )
> >       Clipping.create( valid_clipping_attributes )
> >     end.should change( Clipping, :count ).by( 1 )
> >   end
> >
> > It hits the database, but the valid_clipping_attributes are mocks that
> are
> > used throughout the spec so it's divorced from the other specs.
> >
> > If there are any better ideas I'm open to them.
> >
> > Thanx for the response Ashley.
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070725/c0afd796/attachment.html 

From philodespotos at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 20:07:01 2007
From: philodespotos at gmail.com (Kyle Hargraves)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:07:01 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Mock or Stub strategy for validates_uniqueness_of
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707241646i6183f887if425d1f6b3e92e01@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707240607x7686c9e3u6779c8e09ff38305@mail.gmail.com>	<2C4C4237-7B54-44AD-A1F5-3C3E16A1CDE2@ashleymoran.me.uk>	<2fff50390707240649s7a4e35fbi99b5c091369f607d@mail.gmail.com>	<2fff50390707240740y22ac9647v9dd18bb0c97e778e@mail.gmail.com>	<57a815bf0707241616u7f484c30w39b2c9044a1a6dd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707241646i6183f887if425d1f6b3e92e01@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <46A69425.20005@gmail.com>

Daniel N wrote:
> On 7/25/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> There would be a different way.
>>
>> In the idea of "Only test the code you write" all you really need to
>> spec is that you have set the right association, because activerecord
>> has it's own tests to ensure the uniq call works.
>>
>> You can do this with a call to reflect_on_association.  Unfortunately
>> that call does not return a hash, but an association object.
>>
>> I wrote a blog post on how to do this easily with a spec_helper.rb
>> method that adds to_hash to reflect on association.
>>
>>
>> http://www.blognow.com.au/q/67540/Reflect_on_association_one_liner_to_check_association_details.html 
>>
>>
>> In the end you end up with a spec that looks like this:
>>
>> it "should test reflection details" do
>>
>>     association_results = {
>>       :macro => :has_many,
>>       :options => {:through => :clipping, :uniq => true},
>>       :class_name => "nil"
>>     }
>>
>>     Book.reflect_on_association(:clip).to_hash.should ==
>> association_results
>>
>>   end
>>
>>
>> Of course, you can add whatever values you want into the hash.
>>
>> I now have one of these specs at the top of pretty much every model
>> spec.  Just set up the hash with all your association rules and then
>> this can be checked and kept track of when you are refactoring or
>> changing code.
>>
>> Hope that helps.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Mikel
> 
> 
> Thanx Mikel.
> 
> I didn't even think of using a uniq on the has_many.  I was using a
> validates_uniquness_of :scope => 'book_id'
> 
> I will definitley look into this one.
> 
> Thankyou
> Daniel

However you decide to go about solving it, the idiom you hit upon is 
what, to me, actually describes the behaviour; if the book already has a 
clip once, you can't add it again:

   lambda { add_twice }.should change(...).by(1)

It states very clearly what results you wish to see.

Going through reflect_on_association feels too much like specifying the 
use of a particular implementation, rather than the desired outcome.

Kyle

From has.sox at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 20:31:50 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:31:50 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Mock or Stub strategy for validates_uniqueness_of
In-Reply-To: <46A69425.20005@gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707240607x7686c9e3u6779c8e09ff38305@mail.gmail.com>
	<2C4C4237-7B54-44AD-A1F5-3C3E16A1CDE2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2fff50390707240649s7a4e35fbi99b5c091369f607d@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707240740y22ac9647v9dd18bb0c97e778e@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707241616u7f484c30w39b2c9044a1a6dd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707241646i6183f887if425d1f6b3e92e01@mail.gmail.com>
	<46A69425.20005@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707241731p22b681a6xb52ab0a663454325@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/25/07, Kyle Hargraves <philodespotos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Daniel N wrote:
> > On 7/25/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> There would be a different way.
> >>
> >> In the idea of "Only test the code you write" all you really need to
> >> spec is that you have set the right association, because activerecord
> >> has it's own tests to ensure the uniq call works.
> >>
> >> You can do this with a call to reflect_on_association.  Unfortunately
> >> that call does not return a hash, but an association object.
> >>
> >> I wrote a blog post on how to do this easily with a spec_helper.rb
> >> method that adds to_hash to reflect on association.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://www.blognow.com.au/q/67540/Reflect_on_association_one_liner_to_check_association_details.html
> >>
> >>
> >> In the end you end up with a spec that looks like this:
> >>
> >> it "should test reflection details" do
> >>
> >>     association_results = {
> >>       :macro => :has_many,
> >>       :options => {:through => :clipping, :uniq => true},
> >>       :class_name => "nil"
> >>     }
> >>
> >>     Book.reflect_on_association(:clip).to_hash.should ==
> >> association_results
> >>
> >>   end
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course, you can add whatever values you want into the hash.
> >>
> >> I now have one of these specs at the top of pretty much every model
> >> spec.  Just set up the hash with all your association rules and then
> >> this can be checked and kept track of when you are refactoring or
> >> changing code.
> >>
> >> Hope that helps.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Mikel
> >
> >
> > Thanx Mikel.
> >
> > I didn't even think of using a uniq on the has_many.  I was using a
> > validates_uniquness_of :scope => 'book_id'
> >
> > I will definitley look into this one.
> >
> > Thankyou
> > Daniel
>
> However you decide to go about solving it, the idiom you hit upon is
> what, to me, actually describes the behaviour; if the book already has a
> clip once, you can't add it again:
>
>    lambda { add_twice }.should change(...).by(1)
>
> It states very clearly what results you wish to see.
>
> Going through reflect_on_association feels too much like specifying the
> use of a particular implementation, rather than the desired outcome.
>
> Kyle



It looks much better when you write it like that though ;)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070725/51ecc28f/attachment.html 

From ricktessner at canada.com  Tue Jul 24 23:54:21 2007
From: ricktessner at canada.com (Rick Tessner)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:54:21 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] spec'ing helpers that use controller
In-Reply-To: <4b430c8f0707241630v72d4ff78ledf155cdf594ada4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1185315044.11009.18.camel@localhost>
	<4b430c8f0707241526t24959384hb153795592339ea7@mail.gmail.com>
	<1185316641.11009.21.camel@localhost>
	<4b430c8f0707241630v72d4ff78ledf155cdf594ada4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1185335661.15448.7.camel@localhost>

Hi,

This worked just fine. :)  Thanks.

On Tue, 2007-24-07 at 16:30 -0700, Courtenay wrote:
> specing helpers just includes the module in your spec.
> 
> So you can cheat like
> 
> describe "Application Helper" do
>   helper_name :application
> 
>   def controller
>     @controller
>   end
> 
>   before(:each) do
>     @controller = mock('controller')
>   end
> 
>   it "should blah blah" do
>   end
> 
> end
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
-- 
Rick Tessner <ricktessner at canada.com>


From raasdnil at gmail.com  Tue Jul 24 23:58:22 2007
From: raasdnil at gmail.com (Mikel Lindsaar)
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:58:22 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Mock or Stub strategy for validates_uniqueness_of
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707241731p22b681a6xb52ab0a663454325@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707240607x7686c9e3u6779c8e09ff38305@mail.gmail.com>
	<2C4C4237-7B54-44AD-A1F5-3C3E16A1CDE2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2fff50390707240649s7a4e35fbi99b5c091369f607d@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707240740y22ac9647v9dd18bb0c97e778e@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707241616u7f484c30w39b2c9044a1a6dd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707241646i6183f887if425d1f6b3e92e01@mail.gmail.com>
	<46A69425.20005@gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707241731p22b681a6xb52ab0a663454325@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57a815bf0707242058g2183b202u87616c9e9c2bc380@mail.gmail.com>

Kyle,

That is a good point.  We are after the behaviour, not the implementation.

Regards

Mikel

On 7/25/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/25/07, Kyle Hargraves <philodespotos at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Daniel N wrote:
> > > On 7/25/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> There would be a different way.
> > >>
> > >> In the idea of "Only test the code you write" all you really need to
> > >> spec is that you have set the right association, because activerecord
> > >> has it's own tests to ensure the uniq call works.
> > >>
> > >> You can do this with a call to
> reflect_on_association.  Unfortunately
> > >> that call does not return a hash, but an association object.
> > >>
> > >> I wrote a blog post on how to do this easily with a spec_helper.rb
> > >> method that adds to_hash to reflect on association.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> http://www.blognow.com.au/q/67540/Reflect_on_association_one_liner_to_check_association_details.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> In the end you end up with a spec that looks like this:
> > >>
> > >> it "should test reflection details" do
> > >>
> > >>     association_results = {
> > >>       :macro => :has_many,
> > >>       :options => {:through => :clipping, :uniq => true},
> > >>       :class_name => "nil"
> > >>     }
> > >>
> > >>     Book.reflect_on_association (:clip).to_hash.should ==
> > >> association_results
> > >>
> > >>   end
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Of course, you can add whatever values you want into the hash.
> > >>
> > >> I now have one of these specs at the top of pretty much every model
> > >> spec.  Just set up the hash with all your association rules and then
> > >> this can be checked and kept track of when you are refactoring or
> > >> changing code.
> > >>
> > >> Hope that helps.
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >>
> > >> Mikel
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanx Mikel.
> > >
> > > I didn't even think of using a uniq on the has_many.  I was using a
> > > validates_uniquness_of :scope => 'book_id'
> > >
> > > I will definitley look into this one.
> > >
> > > Thankyou
> > > Daniel
> >
> > However you decide to go about solving it, the idiom you hit upon is
> > what, to me, actually describes the behaviour; if the book already has a
> > clip once, you can't add it again:
> >
> >    lambda { add_twice }.should change(...).by(1)
> >
> > It states very clearly what results you wish to see.
> >
> > Going through reflect_on_association feels too much like specifying the
> > use of a particular implementation, rather than the desired outcome.
> >
> > Kyle
>
>
>  It looks much better when you write it like that though ;)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From has.sox at gmail.com  Wed Jul 25 06:31:33 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:31:33 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Mock or Stub strategy for validates_uniqueness_of
In-Reply-To: <57a815bf0707242058g2183b202u87616c9e9c2bc380@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707240607x7686c9e3u6779c8e09ff38305@mail.gmail.com>
	<2C4C4237-7B54-44AD-A1F5-3C3E16A1CDE2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2fff50390707240649s7a4e35fbi99b5c091369f607d@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707240740y22ac9647v9dd18bb0c97e778e@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707241616u7f484c30w39b2c9044a1a6dd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707241646i6183f887if425d1f6b3e92e01@mail.gmail.com>
	<46A69425.20005@gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707241731p22b681a6xb52ab0a663454325@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707242058g2183b202u87616c9e9c2bc380@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707250331w232122d2h122833a67b7f393@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/25/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Kyle,
>
> That is a good point.  We are after the behaviour, not the implementation.
>
> Regards
>
> Mikel
>
> On 7/25/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/25/07, Kyle Hargraves <philodespotos at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Daniel N wrote:
> > > > On 7/25/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> There would be a different way.
> > > >>
> > > >> In the idea of "Only test the code you write" all you really need
> to
> > > >> spec is that you have set the right association, because
> activerecord
> > > >> has it's own tests to ensure the uniq call works.
> > > >>
> > > >> You can do this with a call to
> > reflect_on_association.  Unfortunately
> > > >> that call does not return a hash, but an association object.
> > > >>
> > > >> I wrote a blog post on how to do this easily with a spec_helper.rb
> > > >> method that adds to_hash to reflect on association.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> >
> http://www.blognow.com.au/q/67540/Reflect_on_association_one_liner_to_check_association_details.html
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> In the end you end up with a spec that looks like this:
> > > >>
> > > >> it "should test reflection details" do
> > > >>
> > > >>     association_results = {
> > > >>       :macro => :has_many,
> > > >>       :options => {:through => :clipping, :uniq => true},
> > > >>       :class_name => "nil"
> > > >>     }
> > > >>
> > > >>     Book.reflect_on_association (:clip).to_hash.should ==
> > > >> association_results
> > > >>
> > > >>   end
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Of course, you can add whatever values you want into the hash.
> > > >>
> > > >> I now have one of these specs at the top of pretty much every model
> > > >> spec.  Just set up the hash with all your association rules and
> then
> > > >> this can be checked and kept track of when you are refactoring or
> > > >> changing code.
> > > >>
> > > >> Hope that helps.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards
> > > >>
> > > >> Mikel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanx Mikel.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't even think of using a uniq on the has_many.  I was using a
> > > > validates_uniquness_of :scope => 'book_id'
> > > >
> > > > I will definitley look into this one.
> > > >
> > > > Thankyou
> > > > Daniel
> > >
> > > However you decide to go about solving it, the idiom you hit upon is
> > > what, to me, actually describes the behaviour; if the book already has
> a
> > > clip once, you can't add it again:
> > >
> > >    lambda { add_twice }.should change(...).by(1)
> > >
> > > It states very clearly what results you wish to see.
> > >
> > > Going through reflect_on_association feels too much like specifying
> the
> > > use of a particular implementation, rather than the desired outcome.
> > >
> > > Kyle
> >
> >
> >  It looks much better when you write it like that though ;)
> >
> >
> >


Thanx for the input guys.  I wasn''t entirely happy with what I had because
it didn't actually test what I wanted.  It tests that a duplicate cannot be
added.  But I specifically wanted to not allow duplicates for a given
clip_id

  it "should have a uniq clip_id for a given book" do
    lambda do
      Clipping.create( valid_clipping_attributes )
      Clipping.create( valid_clipping_attributes )
    end.should change( Clipping, :count ).by( 1 )
  end

became

  it "should have a uniq clip_id for a given book" do
    lambda do

      Clipping.create( valid_clipping_attributes.with( :book => @book, :clip
=> @clip ) )
      clipping = Clipping.create( valid_clipping_attributes.with( :book =>
@book, :clip => @clip ) )

      clipping.should have(1).error_on( :clip_id )
      clipping.errors.on( :clip_id ).should match(
/(already|duplicate|exists)/i )

    end.should change( Clipping, :count ).by( 1 )
  end

If anyone was interested :P

Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070725/db8d118b/attachment.html 

From port001 at gmail.com  Wed Jul 25 08:02:45 2007
From: port001 at gmail.com (Ian Leitch)
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:02:45 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] MockCov: Proof of concept
Message-ID: <d7a220010707250502q1abeee9ejb1cbae918e401277@mail.gmail.com>

Hey list,

RSpec is great, I've been using it at work for a couple of months now. One
gripe I have is that I find it hard to know exactly to what extent my code
is covered by the specs. I am aware of RCov and Heckle; they're great, but
I'd like to demonstrate another perspective of coverage analysis I've hacked
up.

The perspective is that of what is mocked and what isn't, with RCov
execution analysis mixed in for better viewing. My itch was "To what extent
is my code mocked?" -- hence the name MockCov.
It produces a report for each file with stubbed methods and executed lines
highlighted. From that I can easily see what my specs failed to mock and
therefore most probably didn't specify any kind of behavior for.

Here is a sample report: http://zioko.com/review_drop.rb.html
(please forgive the small size of this sample, my employer understandably
didn't want me showing too much of our code)

You'll notice that there isn't any kind of statistical coverage summary, I'm
not sure how to quantity the results and indeed haven't spent any time
thinking about it; that can come later. For now I'd just like to gauge the
response to this.

I haven't packaged the code up yet, it's a horrible hack and needs to be
reworked from scratch; I need to talk with someone on how best to integrate
it with RSpec before that happens though.

Let me know your thoughts.

Cheers
Ian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070725/b4b657f7/attachment-0001.html 

From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Wed Jul 25 10:24:53 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:24:53 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Mock or Stub strategy for validates_uniqueness_of
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707240649s7a4e35fbi99b5c091369f607d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707240607x7686c9e3u6779c8e09ff38305@mail.gmail.com>
	<2C4C4237-7B54-44AD-A1F5-3C3E16A1CDE2@ashleymoran.me.uk>
	<2fff50390707240649s7a4e35fbi99b5c091369f607d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F6A217CC-F296-4938-99CF-C6BA864951E3@ashleymoran.me.uk>


On 24 Jul 2007, at 14:49, Daniel N wrote:

> That looks like the kind of thing I was initially thinking of, but  
> I started to think that having all those objects being created in a  
> non-related spec could lead to trouble.  If I change what makes any  
> of those objects valid, these supposedly unrelated specs will then  
> break.

Yep, I've had that several times unfortunately...

> I want to try and keep everything seperate, but in this case it  
> seems that things are interdependent.

from the other email...

> It hits the database, but the valid_clipping_attributes are mocks  
> that are used throughout the spec so it's divorced from the other  
> specs.

I like the idea of separating out the valid atributes.  Most of my  
models start along the lines of
   "An XModel created with valid attributes should be valid"
this sanity checks that I know what a valid model is and means if  
anything goes wrong I don't waste hours hunting through

Ashley



From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Wed Jul 25 10:30:24 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:30:24 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Mock or Stub strategy for validates_uniqueness_of
In-Reply-To: <46A69425.20005@gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707240607x7686c9e3u6779c8e09ff38305@mail.gmail.com>	<2C4C4237-7B54-44AD-A1F5-3C3E16A1CDE2@ashleymoran.me.uk>	<2fff50390707240649s7a4e35fbi99b5c091369f607d@mail.gmail.com>	<2fff50390707240740y22ac9647v9dd18bb0c97e778e@mail.gmail.com>	<57a815bf0707241616u7f484c30w39b2c9044a1a6dd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707241646i6183f887if425d1f6b3e92e01@mail.gmail.com>
	<46A69425.20005@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ADD6498E-F279-421C-942C-32FDB1F3A0A0@ashleymoran.me.uk>


On 25 Jul 2007, at 01:07, Kyle Hargraves wrote:

> Going through reflect_on_association feels too much like specifying  
> the
> use of a particular implementation, rather than the desired outcome.

I second that.  I agree that you should only test the code you write,  
but unfortunately(!) you get a lot of behaviour for each line of code  
you write in rails, so I prefer to test the expected behaviour than  
signs that the behaviour is in place

Sometimes I'm forced to break this, in which case I write an  
assumption spec that tests a single case of what the library should  
be doing, then test that I interact with it properly.

Ashley



From marcus at ahnve.com  Wed Jul 25 12:27:17 2007
From: marcus at ahnve.com (Marcus Ahnve)
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:27:17 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] MockCov: Proof of concept
In-Reply-To: <d7a220010707250502q1abeee9ejb1cbae918e401277@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d7a220010707250502q1abeee9ejb1cbae918e401277@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4d4e79cc0707250927x7afe666eoae104c72bdea8b49@mail.gmail.com>

Really cool - I have asked myself that question several times.

/Marcus

On 7/25/07, Ian Leitch <port001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey list,
>
> RSpec is great, I've been using it at work for a couple of months now. One
> gripe I have is that I find it hard to know exactly to what extent my code
> is covered by the specs. I am aware of RCov and Heckle; they're great, but
> I'd like to demonstrate another perspective of coverage analysis I've hacked
> up.
>
> The perspective is that of what is mocked and what isn't, with RCov
> execution analysis mixed in for better viewing. My itch was "To what extent
> is my code mocked?" -- hence the name MockCov.
> It produces a report for each file with stubbed methods and executed lines
> highlighted. From that I can easily see what my specs failed to mock and
> therefore most probably didn't specify any kind of behavior for.
>
> Here is a sample report:
> http://zioko.com/review_drop.rb.html
> (please forgive the small size of this sample, my employer understandably
> didn't want me showing too much of our code)
>
> You'll notice that there isn't any kind of statistical coverage summary, I'm
> not sure how to quantity the results and indeed haven't spent any time
> thinking about it; that can come later. For now I'd just like to gauge the
> response to this.
>
> I haven't packaged the code up yet, it's a horrible hack and needs to be
> reworked from scratch; I need to talk with someone on how best to integrate
> it with RSpec before that happens though.
>
> Let me know your thoughts.
>
> Cheers
> Ian
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>


-- 
http://marcus.ahnve.net

From raasdnil at gmail.com  Wed Jul 25 20:26:47 2007
From: raasdnil at gmail.com (Mikel Lindsaar)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:26:47 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] autotest loosing RAILS_ROOT Constant?
Message-ID: <57a815bf0707251726m3c49f0f3nc933743d8ec7d046@mail.gmail.com>

I am having a weird error that I have not had before... I'm bouncing
it off the list to see if anyone else has had it, or to give me some
pointers about how to find it.

Basically, AUTOTEST will run (RSpec mode), fine, then suddenly, will
complain that RAILS_ROOT is undefined.

Then I stop and restart it, with no code change... no problem.

It happens on different specs where I use RAILS_ROOT like so:

@file = open("#{RAILS_ROOT}/spec/fixtures/files/test_file.txt", "r") {
|f| f.read}

All the specs that error are just like that.  They are nothing
special, read a file, send it to a method, get the result,
result.should == file

This is what it looks like in my console:

===================================

1)
NameError in 'ListToCsvConverter should ...1'
uninitialized constant RAILS_ROOT
./spec/lib/list_to_csv_converter_spec.rb:18:
script/spec:4:

2)
NameError in 'ListToCsvConverter should ...2'
uninitialized constant RAILS_ROOT
./spec/lib/list_to_csv_converter_spec.rb:11:
script/spec:4:

Finished in 0.008741 seconds

2 examples, 2 failures
^Cmenu
c: continue
q: quit
r: restart
menu> r
/usr/local/bin/ruby -S script/spec -O spec/spec.opts  <SNIP>spec.rb
........................................................................................


Finished in 0.533593 seconds

88 examples, 0 failures

===================================


As I said... weird.

Anyone else run into this?

Regards

Mikel

From raasdnil at gmail.com  Thu Jul 26 02:20:59 2007
From: raasdnil at gmail.com (Mikel Lindsaar)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:20:59 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] autotest loosing RAILS_ROOT Constant?
In-Reply-To: <57a815bf0707251726m3c49f0f3nc933743d8ec7d046@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57a815bf0707251726m3c49f0f3nc933743d8ec7d046@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57a815bf0707252320t2d230239ibdd39aa264ca2364@mail.gmail.com>

Don't fear...  chalk this up to an error casued between the screen and
keyboard...

The specs that were causing this problem had a missing spec_helper.rb line.

duh!

Regards

Mikel

On 7/26/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am having a weird error that I have not had before... I'm bouncing
> it off the list to see if anyone else has had it, or to give me some
> pointers about how to find it.
>
> Basically, AUTOTEST will run (RSpec mode), fine, then suddenly, will
> complain that RAILS_ROOT is undefined.
>
> Then I stop and restart it, with no code change... no problem.
>
> It happens on different specs where I use RAILS_ROOT like so:
>
> @file = open("#{RAILS_ROOT}/spec/fixtures/files/test_file.txt", "r") {
> |f| f.read}
>
> All the specs that error are just like that.  They are nothing
> special, read a file, send it to a method, get the result,
> result.should == file
>
> This is what it looks like in my console:
>
> ===================================
>
> 1)
> NameError in 'ListToCsvConverter should ...1'
> uninitialized constant RAILS_ROOT
> ./spec/lib/list_to_csv_converter_spec.rb:18:
> script/spec:4:
>
> 2)
> NameError in 'ListToCsvConverter should ...2'
> uninitialized constant RAILS_ROOT
> ./spec/lib/list_to_csv_converter_spec.rb:11:
> script/spec:4:
>
> Finished in 0.008741 seconds
>
> 2 examples, 2 failures
> ^Cmenu
> c: continue
> q: quit
> r: restart
> menu> r
> /usr/local/bin/ruby -S script/spec -O spec/spec.opts  <SNIP>spec.rb
> ........................................................................................
>
>
> Finished in 0.533593 seconds
>
> 88 examples, 0 failures
>
> ===================================
>
>
> As I said... weird.
>
> Anyone else run into this?
>
> Regards
>
> Mikel
>

From win at wincent.com  Thu Jul 26 05:26:28 2007
From: win at wincent.com (Wincent Colaiuta)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:26:28 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Coding standards and whitespace
Message-ID: <9989DB21-CFBE-4AC4-B9F4-A46D9A3E0A4A@wincent.com>

Recently as a result of using Git I've noticed a number of  
inconsistencies in the RSpec codebase with respect to whitespace  
(mixed line endings, mixed use of spaces and tabs for indentation,  
and trailing whitespace at the end of lines). I never would have  
noticed, but Git produces nice colorized diff output which highlights  
these kinds of inconsistencies.

I wanted to ask if the core RSpec team had established any  
conventions/standards for these things. The basic rationale is that  
if all contributors agree to a small number of conventions for  
whitespace there are less likely to be changesets with non- 
substantive whitespace differences (really, false alarms).

The procedure I used to explore this was as follows:

First export a clean copy of the trunk:

   svn export svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rspec/trunk rspec-trunk
   cd rspec-trunk

Then use the following Bash incantation to see which files had UNIX,  
Mac or Windows line endings:

IFS="
"
for FILE in $(find . -type f)
do
   if ! perl -ne "exit 1 if m/\r/;" "$FILE"; then
     echo "CR detected in : $FILE"
   else
     echo "ok             : $FILE"
   fi
done

All text files used UNIX line endings (LF) with the exception of  
these four, which used Windows line endings (CRLF):

doc/src/default.css
rspec/bin/spec_translator
spec_ui/examples/selenium/README.txt
spec_ui/History.txt

I did a similar Bash thing to find out which files had tabs in them;  
many of them appear to consistently use tabs for indentation but some  
do not, using a mixture of tabs and spaces.

doc/src/breadcrumbs.css
doc/src/default.css
doc/src/default.template
rspec/lib/spec/runner/formatter/base_text_formatter.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/formatter/html_formatter.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/spec_parser.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/formatter/html_formatted-1.8.4.html
rspec/spec/spec/runner/formatter/html_formatted-1.8.5-jruby.html
rspec/spec/spec/runner/formatter/html_formatted-1.8.5.html
rspec/spec/spec/runner/formatter/html_formatted-1.8.6.html
RSpec.tmbundle/Commands/Alternate File.tmCommand
RSpec.tmbundle/Commands/Run Focussed Specification.tmCommand
RSpec.tmbundle/Commands/Run Specifications - Normal.tmCommand
RSpec.tmbundle/Commands/Run Specifications in selected files or  
directories.tmCommand
RSpec.tmbundle/info.plist
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/and_raise.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/and_return_block.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/and_return_value.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/and_throw.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/and_yield.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/any_number_of_times.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/at_least.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/at_least_once.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/at_least_twice.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/at_most.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/at_most_once.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/at_most_twice.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/controller_context.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/controller_context_RESTful.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/Custom Matcher.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/Describe.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/Describe_type.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/Describe_type_string.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/exactly.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/It.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/mock.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/once.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/Require spec_helper.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/response_should_be_success.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/response_should_not_be_success.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/Set Controller for Spec.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/setup.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should ==.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should =~.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should eql.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_be.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_be_a_kind_of.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_be_an_instance_of.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_be_close.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_be_redirect.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_equal.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_have.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_have_at_least.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_have_at_most.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_have_records.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_include.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_match.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not ==.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not =~.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not eql.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_be.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_be_a_kind_of.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_be_an_instance_of.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_be_close.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_be_redirect.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_equal.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_include.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_match.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_predicate.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_raise.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_receive.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_respond_to.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_satisfy.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_not_throw.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_predicate.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_raise.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_receive.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_receive_with_any_args.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_receive_with_args.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_receive_with_no_args.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_redirect_to.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_render.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_respond_to.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_satisfy.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/should_throw.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/teardown.tmSnippet
RSpec.tmbundle/Snippets/twice.tmSnippet
rspec_on_rails/generators/rspec/templates/script/spec_server

Finally I did a search for trailing whitespace. Which yielded the  
following list. Many of the lines contain nothing but whitespace;  
sometimes this use is consistent (ie. the whitespace corresponds to  
the nesting level of the current scope) but at other times it is not.

doc/metainfo.yaml
doc/plugin/breadcrumbs.rb
doc/plugin/rspec_content.rb
doc/plugin/svn_tag.rb
doc/plugin/syntax.rb
doc/plugin/version.rb
doc/src/breadcrumbs.css
doc/src/community/contribute.page
doc/src/community/index.page
doc/src/default.template
doc/src/documentation/before_and_after.page
doc/src/documentation/index.page
doc/src/documentation/mocks/index.page
doc/src/documentation/mocks/mocks.page
doc/src/documentation/rails/generators.page
doc/src/documentation/rails/index.page
doc/src/documentation/rails/install.page
doc/src/documentation/rails/runners.page
doc/src/documentation/rails/writing/index.page
doc/src/documentation/tools/extensions/editors/index.page
doc/src/documentation/tools/extensions/editors/textmate.page
doc/src/documentation/tools/heckle.page
doc/src/documentation/tools/index.page
doc/src/documentation/tools/rake.page
doc/src/documentation/tools/rcov.page
doc/src/documentation/tools/spec.page
doc/src/download.page
doc/src/images/ducks1.png
doc/src/index.page
doc/src/upgrade.page
example_rails_app/app/controllers/naughty_controller.rb
example_rails_app/app/controllers/people_controller.rb
example_rails_app/app/helpers/people_helper.rb
example_rails_app/app/models/person.rb
example_rails_app/config/boot.rb
example_rails_app/config/environment.rb
example_rails_app/config/environments/test.rb
example_rails_app/config/routes.rb
example_rails_app/db/migrate/004_create_things.rb
example_rails_app/lib/tasks/bootstrap_rspec.rake
example_rails_app/public/.htaccess
example_rails_app/public/index.html
example_rails_app/public/javascripts/controls.js
example_rails_app/public/javascripts/dragdrop.js
example_rails_app/public/javascripts/effects.js
example_rails_app/spec/controllers/naughty_controller_spec.rb
example_rails_app/spec/controllers/people_controller_spec.rb
example_rails_app/spec/fixtures/animals.yml
example_rails_app/spec/helpers/people_helper_spec.rb
example_rails_app/spec/models/person_spec.rb
example_rails_app/spec/views/person/create_view_spec.rb
example_rails_app/spec/views/person/show_view_spec.rb
example_rails_app/spec/watir/person_spec.rb
example_rails_app/TODO
pre_commit/lib/pre_commit/core.rb
pre_commit/lib/pre_commit/pre_commit.rb
pre_commit/lib/pre_commit/rspec.rb
pre_commit/lib/pre_commit/rspec_on_rails.rb
pre_commit/spec/pre_commit/pre_commit_spec.rb
pre_commit/spec/pre_commit/rspec_on_rails_spec.rb
rspec/CHANGES
rspec/examples/auto_spec_description_example.rb
rspec/examples/before_and_after_example.rb
rspec/examples/behave_as_example.rb
rspec/examples/custom_expectation_matchers.rb
rspec/examples/file_accessor.rb
rspec/examples/file_accessor_spec.rb
rspec/examples/helper_method_example.rb
rspec/examples/legacy_spec.rb
rspec/examples/predicate_example.rb
rspec/examples/shared_behaviours_example.rb
rspec/examples/stack.rb
rspec/examples/stack_spec.rb
rspec/examples/stubbing_example.rb
rspec/examples/test_case_adapter_example.rb
rspec/examples/test_case_spec.rb
rspec/failing_examples/failure_in_setup.rb
rspec/failing_examples/failure_in_teardown.rb
rspec/failing_examples/mocking_example.rb
rspec/failing_examples/predicate_example.rb
rspec/failing_examples/raising_example.rb
rspec/failing_examples/team_spec.rb
rspec/lib/autotest/rspec.rb
rspec/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour.rb
rspec/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour_callbacks.rb
rspec/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour_eval.rb
rspec/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour_factory.rb
rspec/lib/spec/dsl/configuration.rb
rspec/lib/spec/dsl/description.rb
rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb
rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example_matcher.rb
rspec/lib/spec/dsl/example_should_raise_handler.rb
rspec/lib/spec/expectations/differs/default.rb
rspec/lib/spec/expectations/handler.rb
rspec/lib/spec/expectations.rb
rspec/lib/spec/extensions/object.rb
rspec/lib/spec/matchers/be.rb
rspec/lib/spec/matchers/be_close.rb
rspec/lib/spec/matchers/change.rb
rspec/lib/spec/matchers/eql.rb
rspec/lib/spec/matchers/equal.rb
rspec/lib/spec/matchers/has.rb
rspec/lib/spec/matchers/have.rb
rspec/lib/spec/matchers/include.rb
rspec/lib/spec/matchers/match.rb
rspec/lib/spec/matchers/operator_matcher.rb
rspec/lib/spec/matchers/raise_error.rb
rspec/lib/spec/matchers/respond_to.rb
rspec/lib/spec/matchers/satisfy.rb
rspec/lib/spec/matchers/throw_symbol.rb
rspec/lib/spec/matchers.rb
rspec/lib/spec/mocks/argument_constraint_matchers.rb
rspec/lib/spec/mocks/argument_expectation.rb
rspec/lib/spec/mocks/error_generator.rb
rspec/lib/spec/mocks/errors.rb
rspec/lib/spec/mocks/message_expectation.rb
rspec/lib/spec/mocks/methods.rb
rspec/lib/spec/mocks/mock.rb
rspec/lib/spec/mocks/order_group.rb
rspec/lib/spec/mocks/proxy.rb
rspec/lib/spec/mocks/space.rb
rspec/lib/spec/mocks/spec_methods.rb
rspec/lib/spec/mocks.rb
rspec/lib/spec/rake/spectask.rb
rspec/lib/spec/rake/verify_rcov.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/backtrace_tweaker.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/command_line.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/extensions/kernel.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/extensions/object.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/formatter/base_formatter.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/formatter/base_text_formatter.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/formatter/failing_behaviours_formatter.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/formatter/failing_examples_formatter.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/formatter/html_formatter.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/formatter/progress_bar_formatter.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/formatter/rdoc_formatter.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/formatter/snippet_extractor.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/formatter/specdoc_formatter.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/heckle_runner.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/option_parser.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/options.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/reporter.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner/spec_parser.rb
rspec/lib/spec/runner.rb
rspec/lib/spec/translator.rb
rspec/lib/spec/version.rb
rspec/Rakefile
rspec/README
rspec/spec/spec/dsl/behaviour_eval_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/dsl/behaviour_factory_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/dsl/behaviour_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/dsl/configuration_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/dsl/description_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/dsl/example_class_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/dsl/example_instance_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/dsl/example_should_raise_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/dsl/predicate_matcher_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/dsl/shared_behaviour_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/expectations/extensions/object_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/expectations/fail_with_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/matchers/be_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/matchers/change_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/matchers/description_generation_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/matchers/exist_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/matchers/handler_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/matchers/have_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/matchers/matcher_methods_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/matchers/operator_matcher_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/matchers/raise_error_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/matchers/respond_to_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/matchers/throw_symbol_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/mocks/any_number_of_times_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/mocks/bug_report_11545_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/mocks/bug_report_7611_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/mocks/bug_report_8302_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/mocks/failing_mock_argument_constraints_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/mocks/mock_ordering_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/mocks/mock_space_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/mocks/mock_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/mocks/multiple_return_value_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/mocks/once_counts_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/mocks/partial_mock_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/mocks/partial_mock_using_mocks_directly_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/mocks/passing_mock_argument_constraints_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/mocks/stub_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/mocks/twice_counts_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/behaviour_runner_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/command_line_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/drb_command_line_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/example_matcher_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/execution_context_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/extensions/kernel_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/formatter/failing_behaviours_formatter_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/formatter/html_formatted-1.8.5-jruby.html
rspec/spec/spec/runner/formatter/html_formatter_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/formatter/progress_bar_formatter_dry_run_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/formatter/progress_bar_formatter_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/formatter/rdoc_formatter_dry_run_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/formatter/rdoc_formatter_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/formatter/specdoc_formatter_dry_run_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/noisy_backtrace_tweaker_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/option_parser_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/options_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/quiet_backtrace_tweaker_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/reporter_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/runner/spec_parser_spec.rb
rspec/spec/spec/spec_classes.rb
rspec/spec/spec/translator_spec.rb
rspec/spec.opts
rspec/UPGRADE
RSpec.tmbundle/Support/lib/spec/mate/switch_command.rb
RSpec.tmbundle/Support/lib/spec_mate.rb
RSpec.tmbundle/Support/spec/spec/mate/switch_command_spec.rb
RSpec.tmbundle/Support/spec/spec_mate_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/generators/rspec/templates/script/spec_server
rspec_on_rails/generators/rspec_controller/templates/helper_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/generators/rspec_controller/templates/view_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/generators/rspec_controller/USAGE
rspec_on_rails/generators/rspec_scaffold/rspec_scaffold_generator.rb
rspec_on_rails/generators/rspec_scaffold/templates/controller_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/generators/rspec_scaffold/templates/edit_erb_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/generators/rspec_scaffold/templates/index_erb_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/generators/rspec_scaffold/templates/new_erb_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/generators/rspec_scaffold/templates/show_erb_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/lib/autotest/rails_rspec.rb
rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/dsl/configuration.rb
rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/matchers/have.rb
rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/base.rb
rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/controller.rb
rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/functional.rb
rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/helper.rb
rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/render_observer.rb
rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/view.rb
rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/extensions/action_controller/base.rb
rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/matchers/assert_select.rb
rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/matchers/have_text.rb
rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/matchers/redirect_to.rb
rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/matchers/render_template.rb
rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails.rb
rspec_on_rails/MIT-LICENSE
rspec_on_rails/spec/rails/autotest/mappings_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour_factory_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec/rails/dsl/configuration_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec/rails/dsl/controller_isolation_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec/rails/dsl/controller_spec_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec/rails/dsl/helper_spec_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec/rails/dsl/ivar_proxy_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec/rails/dsl/shared_behaviour_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec/rails/dsl/view_spec_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec/rails/extensions/action_view_base_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec/rails/extensions/active_record_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec/rails/matchers/assert_select_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec/rails/matchers/description_generation_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec/rails/matchers/redirect_to_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec/rails/matchers/render_spec.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec/spec_helper.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec_resources/controllers/controller_spec_controller.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec_resources/controllers/redirect_spec_controller.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec_resources/controllers/render_spec_controller.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec_resources/controllers/rjs_spec_controller.rb
rspec_on_rails/spec_resources/helpers/explicit_helper.rb
rspec_on_rails/tasks/rspec.rake
spec_distributed/lib/spec/distributed/master_runner.rb
spec_distributed/lib/spec/distributed/slave_runner.rb
spec_distributed/Rakefile
spec_distributed/README.txt
spec_distributed/setup.rb
spec_ui/examples/selenium/Rakefile
spec_ui/examples/selenium/spec/spec_helper.rb
spec_ui/examples/watir/Rakefile
spec_ui/examples/watir/spec/watir/find_rspecs_homepage_spec.rb
spec_ui/lib/spec/ui/formatter.rb
spec_ui/lib/spec/ui/selenium/driver_ext.rb
spec_ui/lib/spec/ui/watir/browser.rb
spec_ui/lib/spec/ui/watir/matchers.rb
spec_ui/Rakefile
spec_ui/spec/spec/ui/watir/matchers_spec.rb

No big deal, but just wanted to throw this out there to see what you  
think.

Cheers,
Wincent


From lists at paulbrackenridge.com  Thu Jul 26 11:13:44 2007
From: lists at paulbrackenridge.com (Paul Brackenridge)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:13:44 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] rspec_resource error
Message-ID: <a7258d6f0707260813p71164fdaobb87d881a089bc30@mail.gmail.com>

First of all hi, I'm new to the list, and rather new to rspec as will
probably show in myquestion.

I have tried installing rspec and rspec_on_rails as plugs both using
"script/install" and
"piston import" commands using the "current release install instructions"
here [1]. However,
there doesn't seem to be any mention of the rspec_resource generator?.

When I run script/generate I get the following:

Installed Generators
  Plugins: authenticated, rspec, rspec_controller, rspec_model,
rspec_scaffold
  Builtin: controller, integration_test, mailer, migration, model, observer,
plugin, resource, scaffold, scaffold_resource, session_migration,
web_service



Could anyone spread any light as to why rspec_resource isn't being
installed? Sorry for the simple question but I can't seem to find any help
on the rspec rubyforge page or through google.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

P

[1] http://rspec.rubyforge.org/documentation/rails/install.html

-- 
Paul Brackenridge

--------------------------------------------------

E -  paul at paulbrackenridge.com
B - http://paulbrackenridge.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070726/f84cff85/attachment.html 

From peter_marklund at fastmail.fm  Thu Jul 26 12:24:15 2007
From: peter_marklund at fastmail.fm (Peter Marklund)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:24:15 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Canonical way to generate RSpec HTML report in Rails
	app
Message-ID: <DC3BB3DC-25B8-4427-A8F8-E15878ACF1C0@fastmail.fm>

Hi!
I was just wondering how you typically generate a spec HTML report in  
a Rails app. Currently I'm doing something like this:

spec spec -f h:spec/spec_report.html

But that seems sort of clumsy and I would have thought that there was  
a rake task for it. Have I overlooked something?

Thanks!

Peter



----------------------------
Peter Marklund
Garvar Lundins Gr?nd 7
11220 Stockholm
Sweden

Mobile Phone: +46-(0)70-4164857
Home Phone: +46-(0)8-50091315
Skype: peter_marklund

IM: AIM - petermarklund, MSN - peter_marklund at hotmail.com, Yahoo -  
peter_marklund2002

http://marklunds.com
----------------------------




From don at donpetersen.net  Thu Jul 26 12:37:33 2007
From: don at donpetersen.net (Don Petersen)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:37:33 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Canonical way to generate RSpec HTML report in
	Rails app
In-Reply-To: <DC3BB3DC-25B8-4427-A8F8-E15878ACF1C0@fastmail.fm>
References: <DC3BB3DC-25B8-4427-A8F8-E15878ACF1C0@fastmail.fm>
Message-ID: <67EB38A5-7F3F-4FC4-BC93-4BBDD7FC21E6@donpetersen.net>

There might be a "better" way to do it, but I basically ripped off  
the builtin spec:doc Rake task almost verbatim and made a custom task  
in my Rails app for generating the HTML report.  This isn't anything  
magical, but you should be able to drop a file called  
"whatever_you_want.rake" in your lib/tasks with the contents  
provided, and it'll give you a "spec doc:html_doc" task that will  
generate the report and save it to "spec/report.html".

Here's the task code: http://pastie.textmate.org/82520

Like a said, complete rip off of another builtin task.  Notice that  
it's executing as a dry-run, so it's not actually executing the  
specs, just generating the report of what specs you have.  Take that  
out and it will actually run them and report accordingly...

Don

On Jul 26, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Peter Marklund wrote:

> Hi!
> I was just wondering how you typically generate a spec HTML report in
> a Rails app. Currently I'm doing something like this:
>
> spec spec -f h:spec/spec_report.html
>
> But that seems sort of clumsy and I would have thought that there was
> a rake task for it. Have I overlooked something?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> ----------------------------
> Peter Marklund
> Garvar Lundins Gr?nd 7
> 11220 Stockholm
> Sweden
>
> Mobile Phone: +46-(0)70-4164857
> Home Phone: +46-(0)8-50091315
> Skype: peter_marklund
>
> IM: AIM - petermarklund, MSN - peter_marklund at hotmail.com, Yahoo -
> peter_marklund2002
>
> http://marklunds.com
> ----------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From peter_marklund at fastmail.fm  Thu Jul 26 12:54:12 2007
From: peter_marklund at fastmail.fm (Peter Marklund)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:54:12 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Canonical way to generate RSpec HTML report in
	Rails app
In-Reply-To: <67EB38A5-7F3F-4FC4-BC93-4BBDD7FC21E6@donpetersen.net>
References: <DC3BB3DC-25B8-4427-A8F8-E15878ACF1C0@fastmail.fm>
	<67EB38A5-7F3F-4FC4-BC93-4BBDD7FC21E6@donpetersen.net>
Message-ID: <A314E81C-F7EA-4398-992F-B87914651188@fastmail.fm>

Hi Don!
Thanks, that looks nice. For now I'm just using this bash alias:

alias specdoc='spec spec -f h:spec/spec_report.html; open spec/ 
spec_report.html'

However, I guess it's nicer to have this be a Rake task so that it  
can be used by the whole development team. I was looking for an easy  
way to pass options on from rake to the spec command, but I'm sort of  
starting to get the feeling that sometimes it's better to invoke the  
spec command directly instead of going via rake just as is the case  
with Capistrano and the cap command.

Cheers

Peter

On Jul 26, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Don Petersen wrote:

> There might be a "better" way to do it, but I basically ripped off
> the builtin spec:doc Rake task almost verbatim and made a custom task
> in my Rails app for generating the HTML report.  This isn't anything
> magical, but you should be able to drop a file called
> "whatever_you_want.rake" in your lib/tasks with the contents
> provided, and it'll give you a "spec doc:html_doc" task that will
> generate the report and save it to "spec/report.html".
>
> Here's the task code: http://pastie.textmate.org/82520
>
> Like a said, complete rip off of another builtin task.  Notice that
> it's executing as a dry-run, so it's not actually executing the
> specs, just generating the report of what specs you have.  Take that
> out and it will actually run them and report accordingly...
>
> Don
>
> On Jul 26, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Peter Marklund wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>> I was just wondering how you typically generate a spec HTML report in
>> a Rails app. Currently I'm doing something like this:
>>
>> spec spec -f h:spec/spec_report.html
>>
>> But that seems sort of clumsy and I would have thought that there was
>> a rake task for it. Have I overlooked something?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------
>> Peter Marklund
>> Garvar Lundins Gr?nd 7
>> 11220 Stockholm
>> Sweden
>>
>> Mobile Phone: +46-(0)70-4164857
>> Home Phone: +46-(0)8-50091315
>> Skype: peter_marklund
>>
>> IM: AIM - petermarklund, MSN - peter_marklund at hotmail.com, Yahoo -
>> peter_marklund2002
>>
>> http://marklunds.com
>> ----------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users



----------------------------
Peter Marklund
Garvar Lundins Gr?nd 7
11220 Stockholm
Sweden

Mobile Phone: +46-(0)70-4164857
Home Phone: +46-(0)8-50091315
Skype: peter_marklund

IM: AIM - petermarklund, MSN - peter_marklund at hotmail.com, Yahoo -  
peter_marklund2002

http://marklunds.com
----------------------------




From drichards at showcase60.com  Thu Jul 26 12:50:37 2007
From: drichards at showcase60.com (David Richards)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:50:37 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] rspec_on_rails magical incantations
Message-ID: <211720B4-A949-4131-9F65-9C3012FDE48D@showcase60.com>

I ran into something really puzzling today.  I don't know exactly why  
it's happening, but I thought I'd share my experiences.

I started a dummy app just to test an idea outside of the context of  
my real work today.  So, I quickly get things started:

* rails junk
* cd junk
* ruby script/plugin install svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rspec/tags/ 
CURRENT/rspec
* ruby script/plugin install svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rspec/tags/ 
CURRENT/rspec_on_rails
* script/generate rspec
* script/generate rspec_scaffold Junk name:string
* script/generate rspec
* cp ../mrm/config/database.yml config/ (just a good database script  
that tells me where I keep my SQLite databases)
* rake db:migrate
* autotest

That gives me an error on @junk = Junk.new in the setup of my  
scaffolded Junk model.  I wrestled with it for a while, and couldn't  
get around it.  I could get the test to pass with rake spec, which  
uses the other runner, but not with autotest or script/spec, which I  
believe use the same runner.

So I scraped the whole app and started from scratch, this time  
generating rspec before I generated the scaffold.  Turns out this was  
the trick.  Now, why the funny problem, I don't know.  I guess the  
generator needs to see something different while it generates, but I  
can't imagine what it is.  The spec_helper.rb and the spec.opts are  
the same, I believe.  (I checked that between my working app and non- 
working app and didn't see a difference.)  There are the previous- 
failures.txt, which I can't imagine would affect anything.  Then  
there's script/spec and script/spec_server.  I'm sure it has  
something to do with the scaffold generator talking to them somehow,  
but since the generated spec is identical, I don't know.

Anyway, I'm stumped.  If anyone understands this, great.  It's one  
less mystery at the end of the day.  If not, I'll just remember to do  
my incantations in the correct order and post this in case someone  
else runs into the same problem.

Cheers,

David

From johan at johansorensen.com  Thu Jul 26 13:06:45 2007
From: johan at johansorensen.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johan_S=F8rensen?=)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:06:45 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Canonical way to generate RSpec HTML report in
	Rails app
In-Reply-To: <A314E81C-F7EA-4398-992F-B87914651188@fastmail.fm>
References: <DC3BB3DC-25B8-4427-A8F8-E15878ACF1C0@fastmail.fm>
	<67EB38A5-7F3F-4FC4-BC93-4BBDD7FC21E6@donpetersen.net>
	<A314E81C-F7EA-4398-992F-B87914651188@fastmail.fm>
Message-ID: <679ED8CE-70F8-4211-8AED-F4F64ECABEEF@johansorensen.com>


On Jul 26, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Peter Marklund wrote:

> Hi Don!
> Thanks, that looks nice. For now I'm just using this bash alias:
>
> alias specdoc='spec spec -f h:spec/spec_report.html; open spec/
> spec_report.html'
>
> However, I guess it's nicer to have this be a Rake task so that it
> can be used by the whole development team. I was looking for an easy
> way to pass options on from rake to the spec command, but I'm sort of
> starting to get the feeling that sometimes it's better to invoke the
> spec command directly instead of going via rake just as is the case
> with Capistrano and the cap command.
>

Maybe something like (untested, but it's along the lines of my other  
SpecTask's):

   require "spec/rake/spectask"

   Spec::Rake::SpecTask.new("htmlspecdocs") do |t|
     t.spec_files = FileList["spec/**/*_spec.rb"]
     t.spec_opts = [
       "--require", File.dirname(__FILE__) + "/../../spec/spec_helper",
       # maybe just "h" is enough instead of the classpath here
       "--format", "Spec::Runner::Formatter::HtmlFormatter:doc/ 
spec_report.html"
     ]
   end

JS



From rob.anderton at thewebfellas.com  Thu Jul 26 11:30:39 2007
From: rob.anderton at thewebfellas.com (rob_twf)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] Spec for validation plugin
Message-ID: <11812924.post@talk.nabble.com>


Hi,

I'm writing a specification for a model called Location which has a
post_code attribute which should be a valid UK postcode. I'm using the 
http://svn.designbyfront.com/rails/plugins/validates_as_uk_postcode/
validates_as_uk_postcode  plugin to handle the validation but I'm not sure
how I should properly specify my model.

Heres the model code:

class Location < ActiveRecord::Base
    validates_as_uk_postcode :post_code
end

In my model spec I want something like this (assume @location has been setup
as a new Location instance):
 
  it "should be invalid if the post code is incorrectly formatted" do
    @location.post_code => 'Q1 1QQ'
    @location.should_not be_valid
    @location.should have(1).error_on(:post_code)   
  end

But there are many examples of invalid post codes and they are already
tested in the plugin's own test cases. I only really want to test my code,
rather than retest the plugin.

So my question is how should I write the specification so that it doesn't
duplicate the tests in the plugin but at the same time expresses the correct
behaviour of the Location model?

Thanks in advance,
Rob
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Spec-for-validation-plugin-tf4152378.html#a11812924
Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul 26 15:10:45 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:10:45 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Spec for validation plugin
In-Reply-To: <11812924.post@talk.nabble.com>
References: <11812924.post@talk.nabble.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707261210j279d58e1mc74329036d0254c5@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/26/07, rob_twf <rob.anderton at thewebfellas.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm writing a specification for a model called Location which has a
> post_code attribute which should be a valid UK postcode. I'm using the
> http://svn.designbyfront.com/rails/plugins/validates_as_uk_postcode/
> validates_as_uk_postcode  plugin to handle the validation but I'm not sure
> how I should properly specify my model.
>
> Heres the model code:
>
> class Location < ActiveRecord::Base
>     validates_as_uk_postcode :post_code
> end
>
> In my model spec I want something like this (assume @location has been setup
> as a new Location instance):
>
>   it "should be invalid if the post code is incorrectly formatted" do
>     @location.post_code => 'Q1 1QQ'
>     @location.should_not be_valid
>     @location.should have(1).error_on(:post_code)
>   end
>
> But there are many examples of invalid post codes and they are already
> tested in the plugin's own test cases. I only really want to test my code,
> rather than retest the plugin.
>
> So my question is how should I write the specification so that it doesn't
> duplicate the tests in the plugin but at the same time expresses the correct
> behaviour of the Location model?

Here are some interesting thoughts on that:

http://blog.jayfields.com/2006/12/rails-unit-testing-activerecord.html

Just apply the same thinking to rspec.

>
> Thanks in advance,
> Rob
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Spec-for-validation-plugin-tf4152378.html#a11812924
> Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com  Thu Jul 26 15:39:00 2007
From: mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com (Scott Taylor)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:39:00 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] MockCov: Proof of concept
In-Reply-To: <4d4e79cc0707250927x7afe666eoae104c72bdea8b49@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d7a220010707250502q1abeee9ejb1cbae918e401277@mail.gmail.com>
	<4d4e79cc0707250927x7afe666eoae104c72bdea8b49@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C487041-CECB-45C2-9085-98E86B930505@railsnewbie.com>

Yeah - I think that's a neat idea too.

Does the code only work with RSpec's mocking framework?  Maybe it  
could be integrated into Rcov somehow.

Scott

On Jul 25, 2007, at 12:27 PM, Marcus Ahnve wrote:

> Really cool - I have asked myself that question several times.
>
> /Marcus
>
> On 7/25/07, Ian Leitch <port001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey list,
>>
>> RSpec is great, I've been using it at work for a couple of months  
>> now. One
>> gripe I have is that I find it hard to know exactly to what extent  
>> my code
>> is covered by the specs. I am aware of RCov and Heckle; they're  
>> great, but
>> I'd like to demonstrate another perspective of coverage analysis  
>> I've hacked
>> up.
>>
>> The perspective is that of what is mocked and what isn't, with RCov
>> execution analysis mixed in for better viewing. My itch was "To  
>> what extent
>> is my code mocked?" -- hence the name MockCov.
>> It produces a report for each file with stubbed methods and  
>> executed lines
>> highlighted. From that I can easily see what my specs failed to  
>> mock and
>> therefore most probably didn't specify any kind of behavior for.
>>
>> Here is a sample report:
>> http://zioko.com/review_drop.rb.html
>> (please forgive the small size of this sample, my employer  
>> understandably
>> didn't want me showing too much of our code)
>>
>> You'll notice that there isn't any kind of statistical coverage  
>> summary, I'm
>> not sure how to quantity the results and indeed haven't spent any  
>> time
>> thinking about it; that can come later. For now I'd just like to  
>> gauge the
>> response to this.
>>
>> I haven't packaged the code up yet, it's a horrible hack and needs  
>> to be
>> reworked from scratch; I need to talk with someone on how best to  
>> integrate
>> it with RSpec before that happens though.
>>
>> Let me know your thoughts.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Ian
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>
>
> -- 
> http://marcus.ahnve.net
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From carpeaqua at gmail.com  Thu Jul 26 16:29:07 2007
From: carpeaqua at gmail.com (Justin Williams)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:29:07 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking Access Control
In-Reply-To: <981f96b60707241533j36cfdb90ifbb025bc6e85628e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <981f96b60707241446sfa91203j5a8f804f9007f346@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707241451h619efac8m68e49ef6661b2002@mail.gmail.com>
	<981f96b60707241533j36cfdb90ifbb025bc6e85628e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <981f96b60707261329m4e3b0397s3e1a950b30f1a616@mail.gmail.com>

I've done some more work on the specs, and it seems that my mocks
aren't pushing in the roles array associated with current_user.


describe UsersController do
  before(:each) do
    @user = mock_model(User,
      :id => 1,
      :email => 'teamup at teamup.host',
      :password => 'teamup'
    )

    controller.stub!(:current_user).and_return(@user)
  end

  it "should login as a tutor" do
    @role = mock_model(Role)
    @role.stub!(:title).and_return("tutor")
    @user.should_receive(:roles).and_return([@role])
    @user.stub!(:type).and_return("Tutor")

    User.should_receive(:authenticate).with('teamup at teamup.host','teamup').and_return(@user)
    session[:user] = @user.id
    post :login, :login => {:email => "teamup at teamup.host", :password
=> "teamup"}
    response.should be_success
    response.should redirect_to(:controller => "toolkit/overview")
    should_be_logged_in
  end
end


The error i receive is  'UsersController should login as a tutor'
FAILED expected redirect to {:controller=>"toolkit/overview"}, got no
redirect".  If I modify the test to be should render_template("index")
it will fail, saying that the template is reverting back to login.

Any ideas on what I'm doing wrong?

Thanks!

- j

On 7/24/07, Justin Williams <carpeaqua at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/24/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Would you please post the code for the actions as well?
>
> def login
>   if request.post?
>   begin
>     session[:user] = User.authenticate(params[:login][:email],
> params[:login][:password]).id
>
>     if current_user.roles.include?(Role.find_by_title("employee")) or
> current_user.roles.include?(Role.find_by_title("administrator"))
>       redirect_to staff_path
>     elsif current_user.roles.include?(Role.find_by_title("tutor"))
>       redirect_to toolkit_path
>     elsif current_user.roles.include?(Role.find_by_title("client"))
>       redirect_to client_path
>     end
>    rescue
>      flash[:warning] = "Your e-mail address or password is invalid."
>      render :action => "login"
>    end
>   end
> end
>
>
> It should also be noted, I realized the specs have two different sets
> of credentials.  Modifying this to use a single one doesn't correct
> it.  I was just a bit too liberal in my cut/pasting for email.
>
> Thanks!
>
> - j
>


-- 
-
Justin Williams
justin at carpeaqua.com
work: http://www.secondgearllc.com/
play: http://www.carpeaqua.com

From court3nay at gmail.com  Thu Jul 26 17:22:36 2007
From: court3nay at gmail.com (Courtenay)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:22:36 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking Access Control
In-Reply-To: <981f96b60707261329m4e3b0397s3e1a950b30f1a616@mail.gmail.com>
References: <981f96b60707241446sfa91203j5a8f804f9007f346@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707241451h619efac8m68e49ef6661b2002@mail.gmail.com>
	<981f96b60707241533j36cfdb90ifbb025bc6e85628e@mail.gmail.com>
	<981f96b60707261329m4e3b0397s3e1a950b30f1a616@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4b430c8f0707261422o5354b162h7e99f8d1e8d77caf@mail.gmail.com>

For starters, refactor your user<-->roles interaction.

class User

  def has_role?(name)
    role = Role.find_by_name(name)
    roles.include?(role)
  end

end

Trust me, this will make things much easier to spec, and later, to
scale.  Also, it keeps the DB-specific stuff ("find") in the model,
where it belongs.

It is my belief that if you see a "find" call in the controller, you
could probably refactor it and make it easier to maintain, and just
plain better.

For example, this will only make one DB call per role check for a
total of ~5 db calls

  def has_role?(name)
    roles.count(:conditions => { :name => name }) > 0
  end

This will make one db call to retrieve the list of role names for a
total of 1 db call for the whole action.

  def has_role?(name)
    @role_names ||= roles.map(&:name)
    @role_names.include?(name)
  end

So you can change the implementation without screwing round with a
bunch of tests. In fact neither of these would require a change of
controller specs.

  @user.should_receive(:has_role?).with('tutor').and_return(true)

Hope this helps :)

Courtenay


On 7/26/07, Justin Williams <carpeaqua at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've done some more work on the specs, and it seems that my mocks
> aren't pushing in the roles array associated with current_user.
>
>
> describe UsersController do
>   before(:each) do
>     @user = mock_model(User,
>       :id => 1,
>       :email => 'teamup at teamup.host',
>       :password => 'teamup'
>     )
>
>     controller.stub!(:current_user).and_return(@user)
>   end
>
>   it "should login as a tutor" do
>     @role = mock_model(Role)
>     @role.stub!(:title).and_return("tutor")
>     @user.should_receive(:roles).and_return([@role])
>     @user.stub!(:type).and_return("Tutor")
>
>     User.should_receive(:authenticate).with('teamup at teamup.host','teamup').and_return(@user)
>     session[:user] = @user.id
>     post :login, :login => {:email => "teamup at teamup.host", :password
> => "teamup"}
>     response.should be_success
>     response.should redirect_to(:controller => "toolkit/overview")
>     should_be_logged_in
>   end
> end
>
>
> The error i receive is  'UsersController should login as a tutor'
> FAILED expected redirect to {:controller=>"toolkit/overview"}, got no
> redirect".  If I modify the test to be should render_template("index")
> it will fail, saying that the template is reverting back to login.
>
> Any ideas on what I'm doing wrong?
>
> Thanks!
>
> - j
>
> On 7/24/07, Justin Williams <carpeaqua at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/24/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Would you please post the code for the actions as well?
> >
> > def login
> >   if request.post?
> >   begin
> >     session[:user] = User.authenticate(params[:login][:email],
> > params[:login][:password]).id
> >
> >     if current_user.roles.include?(Role.find_by_title("employee")) or
> > current_user.roles.include?(Role.find_by_title("administrator"))
> >       redirect_to staff_path
> >     elsif current_user.roles.include?(Role.find_by_title("tutor"))
> >       redirect_to toolkit_path
> >     elsif current_user.roles.include?(Role.find_by_title("client"))
> >       redirect_to client_path
> >     end
> >    rescue
> >      flash[:warning] = "Your e-mail address or password is invalid."
> >      render :action => "login"
> >    end
> >   end
> > end
> >
> >
> > It should also be noted, I realized the specs have two different sets
> > of credentials.  Modifying this to use a single one doesn't correct
> > it.  I was just a bit too liberal in my cut/pasting for email.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > - j
> >
>
>
> --
> -
> Justin Williams
> justin at carpeaqua.com
> work: http://www.secondgearllc.com/
> play: http://www.carpeaqua.com
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From crafterm at redartisan.com  Thu Jul 26 18:52:16 2007
From: crafterm at redartisan.com (Marcus Crafter)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:52:16 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] rspec_resource error
In-Reply-To: <a7258d6f0707260813p71164fdaobb87d881a089bc30@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a7258d6f0707260813p71164fdaobb87d881a089bc30@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <73AC1761-5E6B-4DF8-975C-11E0F6F2B7CB@redartisan.com>

Hi Paul,

On 27/07/2007, at 1:13 AM, Paul Brackenridge wrote:

> When I run script/generate I get the following:
>
> Installed Generators
>   Plugins: authenticated, rspec, rspec_controller, rspec_model,  
> rspec_scaffold
>   Builtin: controller, integration_test, mailer, migration, model,  
> observer, plugin, resource, scaffold, scaffold_resource,  
> session_migration, web_service
>
> Could anyone spread any light as to why rspec_resource isn't being  
> installed? Sorry for the simple question but I can't seem to find  
> any help on the rspec rubyforge page or through google.

It's been renamed from rspec_resource to rspec_scaffold in a more  
recent release, looks like you're installation is good to go. We  
should look at updating the web site to reflect the name change.

Hope this helps mate.

Cheers,

Marcus



From lists at paulbrackenridge.com  Thu Jul 26 18:55:19 2007
From: lists at paulbrackenridge.com (Paul Brackenridge)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:55:19 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] rspec_resource error
In-Reply-To: <73AC1761-5E6B-4DF8-975C-11E0F6F2B7CB@redartisan.com>
References: <a7258d6f0707260813p71164fdaobb87d881a089bc30@mail.gmail.com>
	<73AC1761-5E6B-4DF8-975C-11E0F6F2B7CB@redartisan.com>
Message-ID: <a7258d6f0707261555g6bd3bf3p8aa4b402b6a5ee5d@mail.gmail.com>

On 26/07/07, Marcus Crafter <crafterm at redartisan.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> It's been renamed from rspec_resource to rspec_scaffold in a more
> recent release, looks like you're installation is good to go. We
> should look at updating the web site to reflect the name change.
>
> Hope this helps mate.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Marcus
>

Ahhh!! Great news. Thanks for that :-)

-- 
Paul Brackenridge

--------------------------------------------------

E -  paul at paulbrackenridge.com
B - http://paulbrackenridge.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070726/17d0ecbf/attachment.html 

From yrashk at gmail.com  Thu Jul 26 19:26:28 2007
From: yrashk at gmail.com (Yurii Rashkovskii)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:26:28 +0300
Subject: [rspec-users] response.should_not redirect_to
Message-ID: <87A4A3F6-CA21-4667-80BF-BCF6AB018742@verbdev.com>

Hey,

May be it is just too deep night over here and I'm missing something  
though I got this failure on {{{response.should_not redirect_to}}}:

'QueuesController should allow authenticated user to access 'show''  
FAILED
Matcher does not support should_not.
See Spec::Matchers for more information
about matchers.

Also I've found this in rspec_on_rails sources:

       #   response.should_not redirect_to(url)
       #   response.should_not redirect_to(:action => action_name)
       #   response.should_not redirect_to(:controller =>  
controller_name, :action => action_name)


So, am I really missing something important?

I've added negative_failure_message to RedirectTo matcher and it  
seems to function just fine (though as I've stated, it's quite late  
over here,  so I could be wrong)

class Spec::Rails::Matchers::RedirectTo
   def negative_failure_message
       return %Q{expected to not to be redirected to # 
{@expected.inspect}, but actually was redirected there} if @redirected
   end
end

Any ideas?

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul 26 20:26:35 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:26:35 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] response.should_not redirect_to
In-Reply-To: <87A4A3F6-CA21-4667-80BF-BCF6AB018742@verbdev.com>
References: <87A4A3F6-CA21-4667-80BF-BCF6AB018742@verbdev.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707261726p693e9c58q71aad774870d2432@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/26/07, Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> May be it is just too deep night over here and I'm missing something
> though I got this failure on {{{response.should_not redirect_to}}}:
>
> 'QueuesController should allow authenticated user to access 'show''
> FAILED
> Matcher does not support should_not.
> See Spec::Matchers for more information
> about matchers.
>
> Also I've found this in rspec_on_rails sources:
>
>        #   response.should_not redirect_to(url)
>        #   response.should_not redirect_to(:action => action_name)
>        #   response.should_not redirect_to(:controller =>
> controller_name, :action => action_name)
>
>
> So, am I really missing something important?
>
> I've added negative_failure_message to RedirectTo matcher and it
> seems to function just fine (though as I've stated, it's quite late
> over here,  so I could be wrong)
>
> class Spec::Rails::Matchers::RedirectTo
>    def negative_failure_message
>        return %Q{expected to not to be redirected to #
> {@expected.inspect}, but actually was redirected there} if @redirected
>    end
> end
>
> Any ideas?

Sorry - the docs are inconsistent with the code - I intended to NOT
allow "should_not redirect_to" because it seemed sort of silly to me.
I would think you either want it to redirect somewhere known or expect
something other than a redirect. WDYT?

David

From yrashk at gmail.com  Thu Jul 26 20:31:42 2007
From: yrashk at gmail.com (Yurii Rashkovskii)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 03:31:42 +0300
Subject: [rspec-users] response.should_not redirect_to
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707261726p693e9c58q71aad774870d2432@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87A4A3F6-CA21-4667-80BF-BCF6AB018742@verbdev.com>
	<57c63afe0707261726p693e9c58q71aad774870d2432@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <187B8267-CAE5-41AD-B449-FA4556A86AFF@verbdev.com>


On Jul 27, 2007, at 3:26 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:

> On 7/26/07, Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> May be it is just too deep night over here and I'm missing something
>> though I got this failure on {{{response.should_not redirect_to}}}:
>>
>> 'QueuesController should allow authenticated user to access 'show''
>> FAILED
>> Matcher does not support should_not.
>> See Spec::Matchers for more information
>> about matchers.

...

>>
>> class Spec::Rails::Matchers::RedirectTo
>>    def negative_failure_message
>>        return %Q{expected to not to be redirected to #
>> {@expected.inspect}, but actually was redirected there} if  
>> @redirected
>>    end
>> end
>>
>> Any ideas?
>
> Sorry - the docs are inconsistent with the code - I intended to NOT
> allow "should_not redirect_to" because it seemed sort of silly to me.
> I would think you either want it to redirect somewhere known or expect
> something other than a redirect. WDYT?

Here is an extract from my source code

     it "should allow authenticated user to access '#{action}'" do
       @user = mock_user_authentication(:id => 1, :identity_url =>  
"http://openid.server/yrashk", :queues => [])
       get action, params
       assigns[:current_user].should == @user
       flash[:error].should be_nil
       response.should_not redirect_to(login_url)
     end

Depending on action, it is either successful response or response  
that redirects somewhere (but not to login, since user is "proven" to  
be authenticated). In this example, I really don't want to care,  
whether it was successful response or redirection to somewhere, until  
it is not a redirection to login URL.

Stupid enough?

Yurii.

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul 26 20:44:15 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:44:15 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] response.should_not redirect_to
In-Reply-To: <187B8267-CAE5-41AD-B449-FA4556A86AFF@verbdev.com>
References: <87A4A3F6-CA21-4667-80BF-BCF6AB018742@verbdev.com>
	<57c63afe0707261726p693e9c58q71aad774870d2432@mail.gmail.com>
	<187B8267-CAE5-41AD-B449-FA4556A86AFF@verbdev.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707261744s5bdb9ca4ob7d4a68585874767@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/26/07, Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 27, 2007, at 3:26 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> > On 7/26/07, Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hey,
> >>
> >> May be it is just too deep night over here and I'm missing something
> >> though I got this failure on {{{response.should_not redirect_to}}}:
> >>
> >> 'QueuesController should allow authenticated user to access 'show''
> >> FAILED
> >> Matcher does not support should_not.
> >> See Spec::Matchers for more information
> >> about matchers.
>
> ...
>
> >>
> >> class Spec::Rails::Matchers::RedirectTo
> >>    def negative_failure_message
> >>        return %Q{expected to not to be redirected to #
> >> {@expected.inspect}, but actually was redirected there} if
> >> @redirected
> >>    end
> >> end
> >>
> >> Any ideas?
> >
> > Sorry - the docs are inconsistent with the code - I intended to NOT
> > allow "should_not redirect_to" because it seemed sort of silly to me.
> > I would think you either want it to redirect somewhere known or expect
> > something other than a redirect. WDYT?
>
> Here is an extract from my source code
>
>      it "should allow authenticated user to access '#{action}'" do
>        @user = mock_user_authentication(:id => 1, :identity_url =>
> "http://openid.server/yrashk", :queues => [])
>        get action, params
>        assigns[:current_user].should == @user
>        flash[:error].should be_nil
>        response.should_not redirect_to(login_url)
>      end
>
> Depending on action, it is either successful response or response
> that redirects somewhere (but not to login, since user is "proven" to
> be authenticated). In this example, I really don't want to care,
> whether it was successful response or redirection to somewhere, until
> it is not a redirection to login URL.
>
> Stupid enough?

That's not a fair question.

Wanna submit a patch?

>
> Yurii.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From yrashk at gmail.com  Thu Jul 26 20:49:08 2007
From: yrashk at gmail.com (Yurii Rashkovskii)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 03:49:08 +0300
Subject: [rspec-users] response.should_not redirect_to
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707261744s5bdb9ca4ob7d4a68585874767@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87A4A3F6-CA21-4667-80BF-BCF6AB018742@verbdev.com>
	<57c63afe0707261726p693e9c58q71aad774870d2432@mail.gmail.com>
	<187B8267-CAE5-41AD-B449-FA4556A86AFF@verbdev.com>
	<57c63afe0707261744s5bdb9ca4ob7d4a68585874767@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3FF93100-300F-41C6-9754-69404408BBBC@verbdev.com>

David,

>>
>> Here is an extract from my source code
>>
>>      it "should allow authenticated user to access '#{action}'" do
>>        @user = mock_user_authentication(:id => 1, :identity_url =>
>> "http://openid.server/yrashk", :queues => [])
>>        get action, params
>>        assigns[:current_user].should == @user
>>        flash[:error].should be_nil
>>        response.should_not redirect_to(login_url)
>>      end
>>
>> Depending on action, it is either successful response or response
>> that redirects somewhere (but not to login, since user is "proven" to
>> be authenticated). In this example, I really don't want to care,
>> whether it was successful response or redirection to somewhere, until
>> it is not a redirection to login URL.
>>
>> Stupid enough?
>
> That's not a fair question.
>
> Wanna submit a patch?
>

With please ? the code was above, once I will understand where should  
I put a spec for it. I got some misunderstanding there (probably the  
night is reason :)

Yurii.

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul 26 20:52:40 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:52:40 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] response.should_not redirect_to
In-Reply-To: <3FF93100-300F-41C6-9754-69404408BBBC@verbdev.com>
References: <87A4A3F6-CA21-4667-80BF-BCF6AB018742@verbdev.com>
	<57c63afe0707261726p693e9c58q71aad774870d2432@mail.gmail.com>
	<187B8267-CAE5-41AD-B449-FA4556A86AFF@verbdev.com>
	<57c63afe0707261744s5bdb9ca4ob7d4a68585874767@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FF93100-300F-41C6-9754-69404408BBBC@verbdev.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707261752i441fc9bax359ff19082879da9@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/26/07, Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk at gmail.com> wrote:
> David,
>
> >>
> >> Here is an extract from my source code
> >>
> >>      it "should allow authenticated user to access '#{action}'" do
> >>        @user = mock_user_authentication(:id => 1, :identity_url =>
> >> "http://openid.server/yrashk", :queues => [])
> >>        get action, params
> >>        assigns[:current_user].should == @user
> >>        flash[:error].should be_nil
> >>        response.should_not redirect_to(login_url)
> >>      end
> >>
> >> Depending on action, it is either successful response or response
> >> that redirects somewhere (but not to login, since user is "proven" to
> >> be authenticated). In this example, I really don't want to care,
> >> whether it was successful response or redirection to somewhere, until
> >> it is not a redirection to login URL.
> >>
> >> Stupid enough?
> >
> > That's not a fair question.
> >
> > Wanna submit a patch?
> >
>
> With please ? the code was above, once I will understand where should
> I put a spec for it.

rspec_on_rails/spec/rails/matchers/redirect_to_spec.rb

Cheers,
David

> I got some misunderstanding there (probably the
> night is reason :)
>
> Yurii.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul 26 20:55:34 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:55:34 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] MockCov: Proof of concept
In-Reply-To: <d7a220010707250502q1abeee9ejb1cbae918e401277@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d7a220010707250502q1abeee9ejb1cbae918e401277@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707261755o36220feq5485d506e8b2198b@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/25/07, Ian Leitch <port001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey list,
>
> RSpec is great, I've been using it at work for a couple of months now. One
> gripe I have is that I find it hard to know exactly to what extent my code
> is covered by the specs. I am aware of RCov and Heckle; they're great, but
> I'd like to demonstrate another perspective of coverage analysis I've hacked
> up.
>
> The perspective is that of what is mocked and what isn't, with RCov
> execution analysis mixed in for better viewing. My itch was "To what extent
> is my code mocked?" -- hence the name MockCov.
> It produces a report for each file with stubbed methods and executed lines
> highlighted. From that I can easily see what my specs failed to mock and
> therefore most probably didn't specify any kind of behavior for.

I'm not sure I understand how you get from this report to some action
you need to take. Would you elaborate with a specific example?

>
> Here is a sample report:
> http://zioko.com/review_drop.rb.html
> (please forgive the small size of this sample, my employer understandably
> didn't want me showing too much of our code)
>
> You'll notice that there isn't any kind of statistical coverage summary, I'm
> not sure how to quantity the results and indeed haven't spent any time
> thinking about it; that can come later. For now I'd just like to gauge the
> response to this.
>
> I haven't packaged the code up yet, it's a horrible hack and needs to be
> reworked from scratch; I need to talk with someone on how best to integrate
> it with RSpec before that happens though.
>
> Let me know your thoughts.
>
> Cheers
> Ian
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From yrashk at gmail.com  Thu Jul 26 21:45:44 2007
From: yrashk at gmail.com (Yurii Rashkovskii)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:45:44 +0300
Subject: [rspec-users] response.should_not redirect_to
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707261752i441fc9bax359ff19082879da9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87A4A3F6-CA21-4667-80BF-BCF6AB018742@verbdev.com>
	<57c63afe0707261726p693e9c58q71aad774870d2432@mail.gmail.com>
	<187B8267-CAE5-41AD-B449-FA4556A86AFF@verbdev.com>
	<57c63afe0707261744s5bdb9ca4ob7d4a68585874767@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FF93100-300F-41C6-9754-69404408BBBC@verbdev.com>
	<57c63afe0707261752i441fc9bax359ff19082879da9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D83E0341-0DBF-4452-AEF1-446D2AEB3DC6@verbdev.com>

David,

>>>> Depending on action, it is either successful response or response
>>>> that redirects somewhere (but not to login, since user is  
>>>> "proven" to
>>>> be authenticated). In this example, I really don't want to care,
>>>> whether it was successful response or redirection to somewhere,  
>>>> until
>>>> it is not a redirection to login URL.
>>>>
>>>> Stupid enough?
>>>
>>> That's not a fair question.
>>>
>>> Wanna submit a patch?
>>>
>>
>> With please ? the code was above, once I will understand where should
>> I put a spec for it.
>
> rspec_on_rails/spec/rails/matchers/redirect_to_spec.rb

That wasn't an issue, I'd rather was thinking where to place it  
within this file. Anyway, patch is submitted.

Thank you,
Yurii.

From tim.watson at bt.com  Fri Jul 27 03:27:05 2007
From: tim.watson at bt.com (tim.watson at bt.com)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:27:05 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] File.stub!
Message-ID: <7E273B565B88AC4A8935D7337A29F1E305436CB5@E03MVX1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>

Hi, 

I'm trying to stub File.open and whenever I do, rspec blows up with the
following error message (undefined method `add' for nil:NilClass), which
seems to happen because method __add in class Proxy is calling #add on
global $rspec_mocks, which in turn is nil. 

Can someone explain what I'm doing wrong, as I can't seem to stub
anything out! Here's my code:

class Foo    
    def Foo.open( name, mode )
        return name
    end
end

describe Something, 'blah blah' do
    
    class FooDouble #:nodoc:
        attr_reader :data
        def initialize
            @data = []
        end
        def method_missing( name, *args )
            puts "ignoring call to #{name} with args [#{args.each |arg|
arg.inspect}]"
        end
        def <<(raw_data)
            @data.push raw_data
        end
    end

    before :all do
        Foo.stub!( :open ).and_return( FooDouble.new )
	  #have also tried and_return { FooDouble.new }
    end
   
    ...
end



From tim.watson at bt.com  Fri Jul 27 04:02:05 2007
From: tim.watson at bt.com (tim.watson at bt.com)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:02:05 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] File.stub!
In-Reply-To: <7E273B565B88AC4A8935D7337A29F1E305436CB5@E03MVX1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <7E273B565B88AC4A8935D7337A29F1E305436CB5@E03MVX1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
Message-ID: <7E273B565B88AC4A8935D7337A29F1E305436D1A@E03MVX1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>

Hi,

I've answered my own question. I changed before :all do; to just before
do (which is the same as before :each do) and everything works fine. I'm
not overly concerned that stubbing has to occur prior to each example
method, but why is this the case? If this behaviour is intended (which
I'm guessing it is), then perhaps this should make its way into the
docs? 

Tim Watson
Technologist
BT Web21C SDK
Email:	tim.watson at bt.com
Cell:	+44 7918 711 612


-----Original Message-----
From: rspec-users-bounces at rubyforge.org
[mailto:rspec-users-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of
tim.watson at bt.com
Sent: 27 July 2007 08:27
To: rspec-users at rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [rspec-users] File.stub!

Hi, 

I'm trying to stub File.open and whenever I do, rspec blows up with the
following error message (undefined method `add' for nil:NilClass), which
seems to happen because method __add in class Proxy is calling #add on
global $rspec_mocks, which in turn is nil. 

Can someone explain what I'm doing wrong, as I can't seem to stub
anything out! Here's my code:

class Foo    
    def Foo.open( name, mode )
        return name
    end
end

describe Something, 'blah blah' do
    
    class FooDouble #:nodoc:
        attr_reader :data
        def initialize
            @data = []
        end
        def method_missing( name, *args )
            puts "ignoring call to #{name} with args [#{args.each |arg|
arg.inspect}]"
        end
        def <<(raw_data)
            @data.push raw_data
        end
    end

    before :all do
        Foo.stub!( :open ).and_return( FooDouble.new )
	  #have also tried and_return { FooDouble.new }
    end
   
    ...
end


_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users at rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From port001 at gmail.com  Fri Jul 27 04:15:41 2007
From: port001 at gmail.com (Ian Leitch)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:15:41 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] MockCov: Proof of concept
In-Reply-To: <4C487041-CECB-45C2-9085-98E86B930505@railsnewbie.com>
References: <d7a220010707250502q1abeee9ejb1cbae918e401277@mail.gmail.com>
	<4d4e79cc0707250927x7afe666eoae104c72bdea8b49@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C487041-CECB-45C2-9085-98E86B930505@railsnewbie.com>
Message-ID: <d7a220010707270115o3d0094cdm7c2cf5e6839db130@mail.gmail.com>

Yeah, only RSpec at the moment, I haven't looked into integrating it with
any of the others. The way it does its magic is tightly coupled with RSpecs
design, specifically the metaclass proxies. Other frameworks may use the
same approach, I don't know.

It can't really be integrated with RCov for the reason above, indeed it
wouldn't be able to produce any meaningful output if RCov were not used in
combination with RSpec.

On 26/07/07, Scott Taylor <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah - I think that's a neat idea too.
>
> Does the code only work with RSpec's mocking framework?  Maybe it
> could be integrated into Rcov somehow.
>
> Scott
>
> On Jul 25, 2007, at 12:27 PM, Marcus Ahnve wrote:
>
> > Really cool - I have asked myself that question several times.
> >
> > /Marcus
> >
> > On 7/25/07, Ian Leitch <port001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hey list,
> >>
> >> RSpec is great, I've been using it at work for a couple of months
> >> now. One
> >> gripe I have is that I find it hard to know exactly to what extent
> >> my code
> >> is covered by the specs. I am aware of RCov and Heckle; they're
> >> great, but
> >> I'd like to demonstrate another perspective of coverage analysis
> >> I've hacked
> >> up.
> >>
> >> The perspective is that of what is mocked and what isn't, with RCov
> >> execution analysis mixed in for better viewing. My itch was "To
> >> what extent
> >> is my code mocked?" -- hence the name MockCov.
> >> It produces a report for each file with stubbed methods and
> >> executed lines
> >> highlighted. From that I can easily see what my specs failed to
> >> mock and
> >> therefore most probably didn't specify any kind of behavior for.
> >>
> >> Here is a sample report:
> >> http://zioko.com/review_drop.rb.html
> >> (please forgive the small size of this sample, my employer
> >> understandably
> >> didn't want me showing too much of our code)
> >>
> >> You'll notice that there isn't any kind of statistical coverage
> >> summary, I'm
> >> not sure how to quantity the results and indeed haven't spent any
> >> time
> >> thinking about it; that can come later. For now I'd just like to
> >> gauge the
> >> response to this.
> >>
> >> I haven't packaged the code up yet, it's a horrible hack and needs
> >> to be
> >> reworked from scratch; I need to talk with someone on how best to
> >> integrate
> >> it with RSpec before that happens though.
> >>
> >> Let me know your thoughts.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Ian
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rspec-users mailing list
> >> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://marcus.ahnve.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070727/2747c7fe/attachment-0001.html 

From port001 at gmail.com  Fri Jul 27 04:52:25 2007
From: port001 at gmail.com (Ian Leitch)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:52:25 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] MockCov: Proof of concept
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707261755o36220feq5485d506e8b2198b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d7a220010707250502q1abeee9ejb1cbae918e401277@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707261755o36220feq5485d506e8b2198b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d7a220010707270152r4ea75dc8ib7b2098c9a5fab36@mail.gmail.com>

Sure.

Say I have Class A and to test it, Spec B. From a quick look at Spec B I'm
able to read the 'when' and 'should' descriptions and get a rough idea what
the spec covers, yet nothing detailed, to do that I'd have to read the Class
and Spec in conjunction, even still, it may not be obvious if a specific
method or object is mocked.

For example:

my_important_method(meth1, meth2)

Say we have spec'ed this to test the call with multiple values for meth1,
but not for meth2. MockCov allows you to easily see that meth2 isn't stubbed
and therefore that the behavior of my_important_method isn't sufficiently
covered.

Whereas Heckle lets you know about insufficient specs by performing
mutations, MockCov should allow you to instead _see_ where the specs are
lacking. I'm not saying this is a replacement for Heckle; they should
compliment each other quite well.

The example I posted in the initial email is very poor. I'm working on an
new feature that will highlight variables in the code that were returned by
mocked calls (it does so using ParseTree). I'll produce a better example to
demonstrate that in the next few days.

On 27/07/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/25/07, Ian Leitch <port001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey list,
> >
> > RSpec is great, I've been using it at work for a couple of months now.
> One
> > gripe I have is that I find it hard to know exactly to what extent my
> code
> > is covered by the specs. I am aware of RCov and Heckle; they're great,
> but
> > I'd like to demonstrate another perspective of coverage analysis I've
> hacked
> > up.
> >
> > The perspective is that of what is mocked and what isn't, with RCov
> > execution analysis mixed in for better viewing. My itch was "To what
> extent
> > is my code mocked?" -- hence the name MockCov.
> > It produces a report for each file with stubbed methods and executed
> lines
> > highlighted. From that I can easily see what my specs failed to mock and
> > therefore most probably didn't specify any kind of behavior for.
>
> I'm not sure I understand how you get from this report to some action
> you need to take. Would you elaborate with a specific example?
>
> >
> > Here is a sample report:
> > http://zioko.com/review_drop.rb.html
> > (please forgive the small size of this sample, my employer
> understandably
> > didn't want me showing too much of our code)
> >
> > You'll notice that there isn't any kind of statistical coverage summary,
> I'm
> > not sure how to quantity the results and indeed haven't spent any time
> > thinking about it; that can come later. For now I'd just like to gauge
> the
> > response to this.
> >
> > I haven't packaged the code up yet, it's a horrible hack and needs to be
> > reworked from scratch; I need to talk with someone on how best to
> integrate
> > it with RSpec before that happens though.
> >
> > Let me know your thoughts.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Ian
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070727/0626a023/attachment.html 

From rob.anderton at thewebfellas.com  Fri Jul 27 07:29:27 2007
From: rob.anderton at thewebfellas.com (rob_twf)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] Spec for validation plugin
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707261210j279d58e1mc74329036d0254c5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <11812924.post@talk.nabble.com>
	<57c63afe0707261210j279d58e1mc74329036d0254c5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <11827396.post@talk.nabble.com>



David Chelimsky-2 wrote:
> 
> 
> Here are some interesting thoughts on that:
> 
> http://blog.jayfields.com/2006/12/rails-unit-testing-activerecord.html
> 
> Just apply the same thinking to rspec.
> 
> 

Thanks for the pointer, here's what I've done:

In spec_helper.rb:

class << ActiveRecord::Base  
  def source_file    
    File.expand_path("#{RAILS_ROOT}/app/models/#{self.name.underscore}.rb")
  end
end

(I preferred source_file to standard_path - seemed more descriptive)

An then my specification looks like this:

  it "should validate that the postcode is correctly formatted" do  
    Location.should_receive(:validates_as_uk_postcode).once.with(:post_code)
    load Location.source_file
  end

That works nicely.

I suppose the downside is it allows implementation to creep into the specs
but if it saves me having to re-test somebody else's code I can live with
it!

I also looked at 
http://spicycode.com/2007/4/2/rspec-expecation-matchers-part-ii SpicyCode's
RSpec extensions  - the approach here appears to be similar to the code in
my original example as it tests validation with a single invalid example and
if that returns the expected result then assumes the validation will work
for all invalid examples (I may be doing it a disservice here as I've only
quickly looked at the source code). This still leaks implementation into the
specs and I think I prefer the Jay Fields approach as it, in my opinion,
more clearly specifies the expected behaviour of the model.

Thanks again,
Rob





-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Spec-for-validation-plugin-tf4152378.html#a11827396
Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


From rob.anderton at thewebfellas.com  Fri Jul 27 08:27:24 2007
From: rob.anderton at thewebfellas.com (rob_twf)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] Spec for validation plugin
In-Reply-To: <11827396.post@talk.nabble.com>
References: <11812924.post@talk.nabble.com>
	<57c63afe0707261210j279d58e1mc74329036d0254c5@mail.gmail.com>
	<11827396.post@talk.nabble.com>
Message-ID: <11828149.post@talk.nabble.com>



rob_twf wrote:
> 
> 
>   it "should validate that the postcode is correctly formatted" do  
>    
> Location.should_receive(:validates_as_uk_postcode).once.with(:post_code)
>     load Location.source_file
>   end
> 
> That works nicely.
> 
> 

Looks like I was a bit eager. Loading the class in this way causes problems
with other validations. For example, I add a name attribute to my class and
validate it's length like this:

class Location < ActiveRecord::Base 
    validates_length_of :name, :in => 1..50
    validates_as_uk_postcode :post_code 
end 

And have this additional specification:

  it "should be invalid if the name is too long" do
    @location.name => 'x' * 51
    @location.should_not be_valid
    @location.should have(1).error_on(:name)
  end  
  (
This fails because the length validation occurs twice giving two (identical)
errors on :name. Removing the post code validation specification allows the
name length validation to work correctly. 

So load() is causing the validation to be defined twice - is there any way
to avoid this?
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Spec-for-validation-plugin-tf4152378.html#a11828149
Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul 27 09:35:21 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:35:21 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] File.stub!
In-Reply-To: <7E273B565B88AC4A8935D7337A29F1E305436D1A@E03MVX1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <7E273B565B88AC4A8935D7337A29F1E305436CB5@E03MVX1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<7E273B565B88AC4A8935D7337A29F1E305436D1A@E03MVX1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707270635u2f8c984hb6938b4778e525db@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/27/07, tim.watson at bt.com <tim.watson at bt.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've answered my own question. I changed before :all do; to just before
> do (which is the same as before :each do) and everything works fine. I'm
> not overly concerned that stubbing has to occur prior to each example
> method, but why is this the case? If this behaviour is intended (which
> I'm guessing it is), then perhaps this should make its way into the
> docs?

There's an open RFE to deal w/ better integrating before(:all) with
everything else:

http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&group_id=797&aid=10696&atid=3152

>
> Tim Watson
> Technologist
> BT Web21C SDK
> Email:  tim.watson at bt.com
> Cell:   +44 7918 711 612
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rspec-users-bounces at rubyforge.org
> [mailto:rspec-users-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of
> tim.watson at bt.com
> Sent: 27 July 2007 08:27
> To: rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> Subject: Re: [rspec-users] File.stub!
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to stub File.open and whenever I do, rspec blows up with the
> following error message (undefined method `add' for nil:NilClass), which
> seems to happen because method __add in class Proxy is calling #add on
> global $rspec_mocks, which in turn is nil.
>
> Can someone explain what I'm doing wrong, as I can't seem to stub
> anything out! Here's my code:
>
> class Foo
>     def Foo.open( name, mode )
>         return name
>     end
> end
>
> describe Something, 'blah blah' do
>
>     class FooDouble #:nodoc:
>         attr_reader :data
>         def initialize
>             @data = []
>         end
>         def method_missing( name, *args )
>             puts "ignoring call to #{name} with args [#{args.each |arg|
> arg.inspect}]"
>         end
>         def <<(raw_data)
>             @data.push raw_data
>         end
>     end
>
>     before :all do
>         Foo.stub!( :open ).and_return( FooDouble.new )
>           #have also tried and_return { FooDouble.new }
>     end
>
>     ...
> end
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From ingo at ingoweiss.com  Fri Jul 27 13:23:38 2007
From: ingo at ingoweiss.com (Ingo Weiss)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:23:38 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] autotest doesn't notice file changes
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707270635u2f8c984hb6938b4778e525db@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7E273B565B88AC4A8935D7337A29F1E305436CB5@E03MVX1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<7E273B565B88AC4A8935D7337A29F1E305436D1A@E03MVX1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<57c63afe0707270635u2f8c984hb6938b4778e525db@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8D99E9E1-9F56-4872-A5D3-DAADDFB79D2E@ingoweiss.com>

Hi all,

I am trying to use autotest with rspec and rais, and it seems to work  
fine when I run autotest -rails initially, but then autotest fails to  
recognize file changes and run tests continuously. Did I skip a step?  
Here is my setup:

rails v1.2.3
rspec plugin v1.0.5
rspec_on_rails plugin v1.0.5
ZenTest gem v3.6.1

Thanks for any help with fixing this!
Ingo

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul 27 13:55:53 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:55:53 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] autotest doesn't notice file changes
In-Reply-To: <8D99E9E1-9F56-4872-A5D3-DAADDFB79D2E@ingoweiss.com>
References: <7E273B565B88AC4A8935D7337A29F1E305436CB5@E03MVX1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<7E273B565B88AC4A8935D7337A29F1E305436D1A@E03MVX1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<57c63afe0707270635u2f8c984hb6938b4778e525db@mail.gmail.com>
	<8D99E9E1-9F56-4872-A5D3-DAADDFB79D2E@ingoweiss.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707271055p7d5c4eb5ra76d991824639bb7@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/27/07, Ingo Weiss <ingo at ingoweiss.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am trying to use autotest with rspec and rais, and it seems to work
> fine when I run autotest -rails initially, but then autotest fails to
> recognize file changes and run tests continuously. Did I skip a step?
> Here is my setup:
>
> rails v1.2.3
> rspec plugin v1.0.5
> rspec_on_rails plugin v1.0.5
> ZenTest gem v3.6.1

Leave off -rails. Just type "autotest"

>
> Thanks for any help with fixing this!
> Ingo
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From carpeaqua at gmail.com  Fri Jul 27 16:38:52 2007
From: carpeaqua at gmail.com (Justin Williams)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:38:52 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking Access Control
In-Reply-To: <4b430c8f0707261422o5354b162h7e99f8d1e8d77caf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <981f96b60707241446sfa91203j5a8f804f9007f346@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707241451h619efac8m68e49ef6661b2002@mail.gmail.com>
	<981f96b60707241533j36cfdb90ifbb025bc6e85628e@mail.gmail.com>
	<981f96b60707261329m4e3b0397s3e1a950b30f1a616@mail.gmail.com>
	<4b430c8f0707261422o5354b162h7e99f8d1e8d77caf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <981f96b60707271338o1d1ad91cl1d9669fb821f0eec@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the help.

I think I'm getting closer.  I'm still not getting a redirect.  I
still think it's the same reason though.  I say this because when I
modify the last line of my spec to be render_template("index") instead
of redirect, it says that it renders the login template.

Am I putting the should_receive for has_role? in the wrong place?

My modified code is below.

def login
  if request.post?
  begin
    session[:user] = User.authenticate(params[:login][:email],
params[:login][:password]).id

    # Redirect the user as appropriate
    if current_user.has_role?("tutor")
      redirect_to toolkit_path
    end
  rescue
    flash[:warning] = "Your e-mail address or password is invalid."
    render :action => "login"
  end
  end
end

------

describe UsersController do
  controller_name :users

  before(:each) do
    @current_user = mock_model(User,
      :email => 'teamup at teamup.host',
      :password => 'teamup'
    )
    controller.stub!(:current_user).and_return(@current_user)
  end

  it "should login as a tutor" do
    @role = mock_model(Role, :title => 'tutor')
    @current_user.should_receive(:roles).once.and_return([@role])

    User.should_receive(:authenticate).with(@current_user.email, at current_user.password).and_return(@current_user)

    @current_user.should_receive(:has_role?).with('tutor').and_return(true)
    post :login, :login => {:email => @current_user.email, :password
=> @current_user.password}
    request.session[:user].should == @current_user.id

    should_be_logged_in

    response.should be_redirect
    response.should redirect_to(toolkit_path)
  end
end

On 7/26/07, Courtenay <court3nay at gmail.com> wrote:
> For starters, refactor your user<-->roles interaction.
>
> class User
>
>   def has_role?(name)
>     role = Role.find_by_name(name)
>     roles.include?(role)
>   end
>
> end
>
> Trust me, this will make things much easier to spec, and later, to
> scale.  Also, it keeps the DB-specific stuff ("find") in the model,
> where it belongs.
>
> It is my belief that if you see a "find" call in the controller, you
> could probably refactor it and make it easier to maintain, and just
> plain better.
>
> For example, this will only make one DB call per role check for a
> total of ~5 db calls
>
>   def has_role?(name)
>     roles.count(:conditions => { :name => name }) > 0
>   end
>
> This will make one db call to retrieve the list of role names for a
> total of 1 db call for the whole action.
>
>   def has_role?(name)
>     @role_names ||= roles.map(&:name)
>     @role_names.include?(name)
>   end
>
> So you can change the implementation without screwing round with a
> bunch of tests. In fact neither of these would require a change of
> controller specs.
>
>   @user.should_receive(:has_role?).with('tutor').and_return(true)
>
> Hope this helps :)
>
> Courtenay
>
>
> On 7/26/07, Justin Williams <carpeaqua at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've done some more work on the specs, and it seems that my mocks
> > aren't pushing in the roles array associated with current_user.
> >
> >
> > describe UsersController do
> >   before(:each) do
> >     @user = mock_model(User,
> >       :id => 1,
> >       :email => 'teamup at teamup.host',
> >       :password => 'teamup'
> >     )
> >
> >     controller.stub!(:current_user).and_return(@user)
> >   end
> >
> >   it "should login as a tutor" do
> >     @role = mock_model(Role)
> >     @role.stub!(:title).and_return("tutor")
> >     @user.should_receive(:roles).and_return([@role])
> >     @user.stub!(:type).and_return("Tutor")
> >
> >     User.should_receive(:authenticate).with('teamup at teamup.host','teamup').and_return(@user)
> >     session[:user] = @user.id
> >     post :login, :login => {:email => "teamup at teamup.host", :password
> > => "teamup"}
> >     response.should be_success
> >     response.should redirect_to(:controller => "toolkit/overview")
> >     should_be_logged_in
> >   end
> > end
> >
> >
> > The error i receive is  'UsersController should login as a tutor'
> > FAILED expected redirect to {:controller=>"toolkit/overview"}, got no
> > redirect".  If I modify the test to be should render_template("index")
> > it will fail, saying that the template is reverting back to login.
> >
> > Any ideas on what I'm doing wrong?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > - j
> >
> > On 7/24/07, Justin Williams <carpeaqua at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/24/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Would you please post the code for the actions as well?
> > >
> > > def login
> > >   if request.post?
> > >   begin
> > >     session[:user] = User.authenticate(params[:login][:email],
> > > params[:login][:password]).id
> > >
> > >     if current_user.roles.include?(Role.find_by_title("employee")) or
> > > current_user.roles.include?(Role.find_by_title("administrator"))
> > >       redirect_to staff_path
> > >     elsif current_user.roles.include?(Role.find_by_title("tutor"))
> > >       redirect_to toolkit_path
> > >     elsif current_user.roles.include?(Role.find_by_title("client"))
> > >       redirect_to client_path
> > >     end
> > >    rescue
> > >      flash[:warning] = "Your e-mail address or password is invalid."
> > >      render :action => "login"
> > >    end
> > >   end
> > > end
> > >
> > >
> > > It should also be noted, I realized the specs have two different sets
> > > of credentials.  Modifying this to use a single one doesn't correct
> > > it.  I was just a bit too liberal in my cut/pasting for email.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > - j
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -
> > Justin Williams
> > justin at carpeaqua.com
> > work: http://www.secondgearllc.com/
> > play: http://www.carpeaqua.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>


-- 
-
Justin Williams
justin at carpeaqua.com
work: http://www.secondgearllc.com/
play: http://www.carpeaqua.com

From court3nay at gmail.com  Fri Jul 27 16:55:16 2007
From: court3nay at gmail.com (Courtenay)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:55:16 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Mocking Access Control
In-Reply-To: <981f96b60707271338o1d1ad91cl1d9669fb821f0eec@mail.gmail.com>
References: <981f96b60707241446sfa91203j5a8f804f9007f346@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707241451h619efac8m68e49ef6661b2002@mail.gmail.com>
	<981f96b60707241533j36cfdb90ifbb025bc6e85628e@mail.gmail.com>
	<981f96b60707261329m4e3b0397s3e1a950b30f1a616@mail.gmail.com>
	<4b430c8f0707261422o5354b162h7e99f8d1e8d77caf@mail.gmail.com>
	<981f96b60707271338o1d1ad91cl1d9669fb821f0eec@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4b430c8f0707271355v4c20f479i60fbda9651facbaf@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/27/07, Justin Williams <carpeaqua at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the help.
>

You're welcome

> I think I'm getting closer.  I'm still not getting a redirect.  I
> still think it's the same reason though.  I say this because when I
> modify the last line of my spec to be render_template("index") instead
> of redirect, it says that it renders the login template.
>
> Am I putting the should_receive for has_role? in the wrong place?
>
> My modified code is below.
>
> def login
>   if request.post?

Have you seen the restful authentication plugin? It would simplify your code.
I modified it for rSpec. You can view it in a working app here:
  http://sample.caboo.se/empty_rails_app/trunk/app/controllers/session_controller.rb

>   begin
>     session[:user] = User.authenticate(params[:login][:email],
> params[:login][:password]).id
>
>     # Redirect the user as appropriate
>     if current_user.has_role?("tutor")
>       redirect_to toolkit_path
         return

  Add a return here.  You should get in the habit of putting a
"return" after a redirect

>     end
>   rescue
>     flash[:warning] = "Your e-mail address or password is invalid."
>     render :action => "login"
>   end
>   end
> end
>
> ------
>
> describe UsersController do
>   controller_name :users
>
>   before(:each) do
>     @current_user = mock_model(User,
>       :email => 'teamup at teamup.host',
>       :password => 'teamup'
>     )
>     controller.stub!(:current_user).and_return(@current_user)
>   end
>
>   it "should login as a tutor" do

These two lines aren't needed:

>     @role = mock_model(Role, :title => 'tutor')
>     @current_user.should_receive(:roles).once.and_return([@role])

  The point of refactoring the role stuff into "has_role?" is that the
implementation of "has_role" could be anything.

  See how your controller doesn't know anything about "User.has_role?"
  Your test shouldn't either.  Just assume that it works.  And test it
in the user model specs.

Put this line before the authenticate line and it all should work.

  @current_user.should_receive(:has_role?).with('tutor').and_return true

>     User.should_receive(:authenticate).with(@current_user.email, at current_user.password).and_return(@current_user)
>

>     @current_user.should_receive(:has_role?).with('tutor').and_return(true)
>     post :login, :login => {:email => @current_user.email, :password
> => @current_user.password}
>     request.session[:user].should == @current_user.id
>
>     should_be_logged_in
>
>     response.should be_redirect
>     response.should redirect_to(toolkit_path)
>   end
> end
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul 27 17:38:23 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:38:23 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Coding standards and whitespace
In-Reply-To: <9989DB21-CFBE-4AC4-B9F4-A46D9A3E0A4A@wincent.com>
References: <9989DB21-CFBE-4AC4-B9F4-A46D9A3E0A4A@wincent.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707271438q54044d4ai5ca5cab2c05f3dbd@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/26/07, Wincent Colaiuta <win at wincent.com> wrote:
> Recently as a result of using Git I've noticed a number of
> inconsistencies in the RSpec codebase with respect to whitespace
> (mixed line endings, mixed use of spaces and tabs for indentation,
> and trailing whitespace at the end of lines). I never would have
> noticed, but Git produces nice colorized diff output which highlights
> these kinds of inconsistencies.
>
> I wanted to ask if the core RSpec team had established any
> conventions/standards for these things. The basic rationale is that
> if all contributors agree to a small number of conventions for
> whitespace there are less likely to be changesets with non-
> substantive whitespace differences (really, false alarms).

Your thinking makes sense, but we haven't set a standard for this. Do
you know how to configure TextMate (which most of us use) to take care
of this automagically when saving files?

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul 27 17:46:36 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:46:36 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Rspec on rails with out database?
In-Reply-To: <3ED1F6E8-5ABF-470C-A1E6-1BC920A5CB85@opensourceconnections.com>
References: <3ED1F6E8-5ABF-470C-A1E6-1BC920A5CB85@opensourceconnections.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707271446p58760487sf2daa7bb8b9f5322@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/24/07, Eric Pugh <epugh at opensourceconnections.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am trying to use rspec_on_rails in a Rails app that doesn't have a
> database.  so far I have just been faking it out by dumping in a
> sqlite3 database just to make Rails happy.

Try deleting config/database.yml (or renaming it to something else)
and then running:

rake spec

That should do it.

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul 27 17:48:50 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:48:50 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Rspec on rails with out database?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707271446p58760487sf2daa7bb8b9f5322@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3ED1F6E8-5ABF-470C-A1E6-1BC920A5CB85@opensourceconnections.com>
	<57c63afe0707271446p58760487sf2daa7bb8b9f5322@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707271448y4720f778wf5af1e35e43c6cad@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/27/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/24/07, Eric Pugh <epugh at opensourceconnections.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am trying to use rspec_on_rails in a Rails app that doesn't have a
> > database.  so far I have just been faking it out by dumping in a
> > sqlite3 database just to make Rails happy.
>
> Try deleting config/database.yml (or renaming it to something else)
> and then running:
>
> rake spec
>
> That should do it.

I take it back. It doesn't work. There is an open RFE on making this
work - perhaps it's time to address it.

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul 27 17:57:03 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:57:03 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Rspec on rails with out database?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707271448y4720f778wf5af1e35e43c6cad@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3ED1F6E8-5ABF-470C-A1E6-1BC920A5CB85@opensourceconnections.com>
	<57c63afe0707271446p58760487sf2daa7bb8b9f5322@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707271448y4720f778wf5af1e35e43c6cad@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707271457t360b6173k56ba500c05993c4c@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/27/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/27/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/24/07, Eric Pugh <epugh at opensourceconnections.com> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I am trying to use rspec_on_rails in a Rails app that doesn't have a
> > > database.  so far I have just been faking it out by dumping in a
> > > sqlite3 database just to make Rails happy.
> >
> > Try deleting config/database.yml (or renaming it to something else)
> > and then running:
> >
> > rake spec
> >
> > That should do it.
>
> I take it back. It doesn't work. There is an open RFE on making this
> work - perhaps it's time to address it.
>

Ah - this worked using Rails 1.2.3 and RSpec's trunk. In config/environments.rb:

Rails::Initializer.run do |config|
  config.frameworks -= [ :active_record ]
end

Cheers,
David

From barjunk at attglobal.net  Fri Jul 27 20:58:07 2007
From: barjunk at attglobal.net (barsalou)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:58:07 -0800
Subject: [rspec-users] Rspec on rails with out database?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707271457t360b6173k56ba500c05993c4c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3ED1F6E8-5ABF-470C-A1E6-1BC920A5CB85@opensourceconnections.com>
	<57c63afe0707271446p58760487sf2daa7bb8b9f5322@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707271448y4720f778wf5af1e35e43c6cad@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707271457t360b6173k56ba500c05993c4c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070727165807.itnhd5f400o4c0gk@lcgalaska.com>

Quoting David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>:

> On 7/27/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/27/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 7/24/07, Eric Pugh <epugh at opensourceconnections.com> wrote:
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > I am trying to use rspec_on_rails in a Rails app that doesn't have a
>> > > database.  so far I have just been faking it out by dumping in a
>> > > sqlite3 database just to make Rails happy.
>> >
>> > Try deleting config/database.yml (or renaming it to something else)
>> > and then running:
>> >
>> > rake spec
>> >
>> > That should do it.
>>
>> I take it back. It doesn't work. There is an open RFE on making this
>> work - perhaps it's time to address it.
>>
>
> Ah - this worked using Rails 1.2.3 and RSpec's trunk. In 
> config/environments.rb:
>
> Rails::Initializer.run do |config|
>  config.frameworks -= [ :active_record ]
> end
David,

I like this solution too, but then you don't have access to some of the 
other nicities for a model, like validations.

I found these links: 
http://www.realityforge.org/articles/2005/12/02/validations-for-non-activerecord-model-objects
http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/pages/HowToUseValidationsWithoutExtendingActiveRecord
http://www.railsweenie.com/forums/2/topics/724

That talk about different ways to solve this.  The last link seems like 
the best.




>
> Cheers,
> David
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


From ingo at ingoweiss.com  Sat Jul 28 08:11:19 2007
From: ingo at ingoweiss.com (Ingo Weiss)
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:11:19 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] autotest doesn't notice file changes
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707271055p7d5c4eb5ra76d991824639bb7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7E273B565B88AC4A8935D7337A29F1E305436CB5@E03MVX1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<7E273B565B88AC4A8935D7337A29F1E305436D1A@E03MVX1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
	<57c63afe0707270635u2f8c984hb6938b4778e525db@mail.gmail.com>
	<8D99E9E1-9F56-4872-A5D3-DAADDFB79D2E@ingoweiss.com>
	<57c63afe0707271055p7d5c4eb5ra76d991824639bb7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A2571E72-F2FE-48DA-B4ED-F8470AD1800E@ingoweiss.com>

This works - thanks, David!

Ingo


On Jul 27, 2007, at 7:55 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:

> Leave off -rails. Just type "autotest"


From has.sox at gmail.com  Sat Jul 28 09:28:28 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:28:28 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] specing a call to render :layout => "some_layout"
Message-ID: <2fff50390707280628g64c06e4dpfb48ed70194c3d94@mail.gmail.com>

I'm trying to specify that an action should be rendered with a given layout
one particular spec.

What I've got at the moment is this.

  it "should render with the grabber layout" do
    controller.should_receive( :render ).with( :layout => "my_layout" )
    do_get
  end

This doesnt work even though this call to render is being executed.

render :layout => "my_layout"

Firstly I don't understand why this isn't working.  I'm getting an object
inspect with this message at the end

expected :render with ({:layout=>"my_layout"}) but received it with (no
> args)
>

I'd really like to understand why this isn't working, but I don't really
like it anyway.  I mean, I really want to spec that under a particular set
of conditions it renders with a given layout.

I can't imagine I'm the first person to come up against this one.  How are
other people handling this?

Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070728/1a148ea7/attachment.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sat Jul 28 09:38:19 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:38:19 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] specing a call to render :layout => "some_layout"
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707280628g64c06e4dpfb48ed70194c3d94@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707280628g64c06e4dpfb48ed70194c3d94@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707280638u5c8457a8xf11113d8c37700b8@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/28/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm trying to specify that an action should be rendered with a given layout
> one particular spec.
>
> What I've got at the moment is this.
>
>   it "should render with the grabber layout" do
>     controller.should_receive( :render ).with( :layout => "my_layout" )
>     do_get
>   end
>
> This doesnt work even though this call to render is being executed.
>
> render :layout => "my_layout"
>
> Firstly I don't understand why this isn't working.  I'm getting an object
> inspect with this message at the end
>
> > expected :render with ({:layout=>"my_layout"}) but received it with (no
> args)
> >
>
> I'd really like to understand why this isn't working, but I don't really
> like it anyway.  I mean, I really want to spec that under a particular set
> of conditions it renders with a given layout.
>
> I can't imagine I'm the first person to come up against this one.  How are
> other people handling this?

I'm not sure what the particular problem is in your case, but there
have been myriad problems with mocking render because render calls
itself recursively and is a one-stop shop for rendering all sorts of
things. RSpec's mock frameworks, as is the case with most mock
frameworks (the one exception I know of being the new RR framework -
see http://rubyforge.org/projects/pivotalrb/) do not support mocking
one call to a method and passing the rest through. So while under some
circumstances everything works fine, under others, not so much.

This is resolved in trunk with the addition of the expect_render
method, which uses composition to interact with a mock, but doesn't
actually mock the method directly. You use it like this:

controller.expect_render(:layout => false)

Any calls to render that don't look like that will be passed through
to the controller's render method.

This will be part of the 1.0.6 release, which has been on hold for a
few weeks pending some additional changes but I'm thinking of
releasing it sooner than later.


>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From has.sox at gmail.com  Sat Jul 28 09:53:51 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:53:51 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] specing a call to render :layout => "some_layout"
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707280638u5c8457a8xf11113d8c37700b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2fff50390707280628g64c06e4dpfb48ed70194c3d94@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707280638u5c8457a8xf11113d8c37700b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707280653k44eda72dhd54a62733d527dc@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/28/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/28/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm trying to specify that an action should be rendered with a given
> layout
> > one particular spec.
> >
> > What I've got at the moment is this.
> >
> >   it "should render with the grabber layout" do
> >     controller.should_receive( :render ).with( :layout => "my_layout" )
> >     do_get
> >   end
> >
> > This doesnt work even though this call to render is being executed.
> >
> > render :layout => "my_layout"
> >
> > Firstly I don't understand why this isn't working.  I'm getting an
> object
> > inspect with this message at the end
> >
> > > expected :render with ({:layout=>"my_layout"}) but received it with
> (no
> > args)
> > >
> >
> > I'd really like to understand why this isn't working, but I don't really
> > like it anyway.  I mean, I really want to spec that under a particular
> set
> > of conditions it renders with a given layout.
> >
> > I can't imagine I'm the first person to come up against this one.  How
> are
> > other people handling this?
>
> I'm not sure what the particular problem is in your case, but there
> have been myriad problems with mocking render because render calls
> itself recursively and is a one-stop shop for rendering all sorts of
> things. RSpec's mock frameworks, as is the case with most mock
> frameworks (the one exception I know of being the new RR framework -
> see http://rubyforge.org/projects/pivotalrb/) do not support mocking
> one call to a method and passing the rest through. So while under some
> circumstances everything works fine, under others, not so much.
>
> This is resolved in trunk with the addition of the expect_render
> method, which uses composition to interact with a mock, but doesn't
> actually mock the method directly. You use it like this:
>
> controller.expect_render(:layout => false)
>
> Any calls to render that don't look like that will be passed through
> to the controller's render method.
>
> This will be part of the 1.0.6 release, which has been on hold for a
> few weeks pending some additional changes but I'm thinking of
> releasing it sooner than later.
>
>
> >
> > Cheers
> > Daniel
> >


Thanx David.

I just updated to trunk and it worked a treat.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070728/7c7f0417/attachment-0001.html 

From nathan.sutton at gmail.com  Sun Jul 29 02:36:46 2007
From: nathan.sutton at gmail.com (Nathan Sutton)
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 01:36:46 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
Message-ID: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>

One of the things that turned me on to BDD and RSpec was speccing  
views first, that the desired end would drive the development.  In  
previous projects while using Test::Unit I would try to make educated  
guesses as to what would be needed in the model and controllers to  
derive the view without actually writing the view until afterwards.  
This is all because testing relied on each previous layer working for  
the next to work, first models, then controllers, then views.  And  
while for the most part the educated guesses panned out, and I'd do  
the models/controllers/views incrementally, I'd repeat a specific  
process a lot.

Test/write model(s)
Test/write controller(s)
Test/write view(s)...oops, I forgot something or I need some extra  
functionality out of the model (or controller) which I didn't guess  
the view would need.

Lets go back to the model to test/add the functionality
Lets test/add functionality in the controller to include this
Lets test the functionality in the view that we had to go back and  
write support code for (if you even do this with Test::Unit, flooding  
your functional tests with ugly ugly ugly tests)

Rinse and repeat, quickly trying to switch contexts from models to  
controllers to views.  While testing helps you predict failures when  
making changes, it's not perfect, and predicting problems in the  
views is even more difficult with the current state of view testing  
in Test::Unit.

While it is still rather agile, and changing the contexts isn't  
really much of a switch in this case, I think a lot could be avoided  
by doing views first and letting it drive the controllers and  
models.  Then the cycle of incremental additions is to add features  
instead of adding things you forgot.  Adding value, rather than  
recovering intended functionality that wasn't foreseen to be needed  
in your views.

Maybe it's all in my head, but I enjoy adding new functionality more  
than spending time going back and adding backend functionality that  
wasn't foreseen to be needed by the frontend.

So what am I on about?  Well, I'm having trouble doing just that.  I  
want to do View-Driven-Development by Behavior-Driven-Development,  
but I'm stumped really where to begin.  Ideally I'd like to see a  
tutorial or something that walks though it, or browse through some  
projects using RSpec for the views, but I can't seem to find any.   
Maybe I'm not looking hard enough or I don't know where to look.

Could anyone help me with this?

Nathan "fowlduck" Sutton

P.S. Excerpt from my crappy blog, if it matters, http:// 
www.saynotomilk.com/

From win at wincent.com  Sun Jul 29 06:46:52 2007
From: win at wincent.com (Wincent Colaiuta)
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 12:46:52 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Coding standards and whitespace
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707271438q54044d4ai5ca5cab2c05f3dbd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9989DB21-CFBE-4AC4-B9F4-A46D9A3E0A4A@wincent.com>
	<57c63afe0707271438q54044d4ai5ca5cab2c05f3dbd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6CDE2479-54C9-41C9-91EA-C4BE4D23B519@wincent.com>

El 27/7/2007, a las 23:38, David Chelimsky escribi?:

> On 7/26/07, Wincent Colaiuta <win at wincent.com> wrote:
>> Recently as a result of using Git I've noticed a number of
>> inconsistencies in the RSpec codebase with respect to whitespace
>> (mixed line endings, mixed use of spaces and tabs for indentation,
>> and trailing whitespace at the end of lines). I never would have
>> noticed, but Git produces nice colorized diff output which highlights
>> these kinds of inconsistencies.
>>
>> I wanted to ask if the core RSpec team had established any
>> conventions/standards for these things. The basic rationale is that
>> if all contributors agree to a small number of conventions for
>> whitespace there are less likely to be changesets with non-
>> substantive whitespace differences (really, false alarms).
>
> Your thinking makes sense, but we haven't set a standard for this. Do
> you know how to configure TextMate (which most of us use) to take care
> of this automagically when saving files?

I don't know of any *fully* automatic way to do this in TextMate but  
there are some things you can do to make it nearly automatic. In my  
experience I've observed a few things:

* The initial "clean up" of a code base is the biggest task (although  
for a project the size of RSpec we are still only talking a few  
minutes' work); after that merely maintaining the standards is  
relatively easy (especially in the case of Git where if you do a "git  
diff" to see what you are about to commit any problems with the  
whitespace are immediately evident)

* Project-wide Find and Replace does a pretty good job of handling  
most scenarios; for further "automation" you could record a TextMate  
macro and assign it to a key combo (for example, to handle trailing  
whitespace do a regular expression search for " +$" and replace all  
instances with nothing)

* The way the Git community tends to work is to enforce this using  
repository hooks, and I imagine this could be done in Subversion too:  
the idea is that you have a pre-commit hook that can check the  
proposed commit against the standards and reject it if it fails (Git  
also has a "--no-verify" switch that you can pass if you want to skip  
the pre-commit hook)

* The burden for enforcing the standards need not fall on the  
maintainers themselves; in the projects I've seen it is normal for a  
maintainer to say things like, "the patch looks good but can you fix  
up the whitespace and resubmit?" etc Of course, this is extremely  
easy and natural when using Git because the diff tools really put any  
discrepancies "in your face".

In any case, I think you don't need to go "all the way" with this; a  
useful first step would be merely deciding upon some standards and  
publishing them. Even if you don't take any further steps  
(enforcement, hooks, automation etc) the mere act of publishing the  
standards and asking people to follow them would be useful.

Cheers,
Wincent


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sun Jul 29 08:57:54 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 07:57:54 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
In-Reply-To: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
References: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707290557k36e2214br54ad890e364cd332@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/29/07, Nathan Sutton <nathan.sutton at gmail.com> wrote:
> I want to do View-Driven-Development by Behavior-Driven-Development,
> but I'm stumped really where to begin.  Ideally I'd like to see a
> tutorial or something that walks though it, or browse through some
> projects using RSpec for the views, but I can't seem to find any.
> Maybe I'm not looking hard enough or I don't know where to look.

http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/articles/2006/11/06/view-spec-tutorial

Cheers,
David

From russell.tracey at gmail.com  Sun Jul 29 15:50:30 2007
From: russell.tracey at gmail.com (Russell Tracey)
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:50:30 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Isolating rails model specs from their implementation
Message-ID: <f8da0f510707291250h707438daua27e204e04ada6f6@mail.gmail.com>

I'm currently taking a Rails project management app I built when
learning Rails and adding specs to it. During the course of building
the app the requirement that project should be archiveable was added.
So a project is in one of two states active or archived.

This led to the creation of the following methods:

Project.active_projects
Project.archived_projects

@project.active?
@project.archived?
@project.archive!
@project.unarchive!

The current implementation of this is using a separate table of
"visibilities" as follows:

# Implementation 1 (Current)

Tables:

  Project
    id name           visibility_status_id
    1  ActiveProject                        1
    1  ArchivedProject                     2

  VisibilityStatuses
    id name
    1  Live
    2  Archived

But the same behavior could be implemented using a datetime column as follows:

# Implementation 2

Tables:

  Project
    id name            archived_at
    1  ActiveProject   null
    1  ArchivedProject 2007-07-29:18:57

Or in fact numerous other ways e.g.

# Implementation 3

Army of cows:

Each cow represents a project, the cows wear one of two hats
to indicate the active/archived status of the project they represent.

...and so on.

It's my understanding that model specs (and specs in general) should
be shielded from the implementation details, so how do i check that
Project.active_projects only returns active projects without looking
at assuming something about the implementation? My initial thought is
to check each of them using one of the other exposed methods above, in
this case...

  Project.active_projects.all? {|p| p.active? }

but then i can't work out how to spec all the other methods without
going round in circles so that each spec would end up assuming that
the other methods work (in this case that p.active? is working) or
worse resorting to peeking at implementation details.

Russell Tracey

From philodespotos at gmail.com  Sun Jul 29 16:16:15 2007
From: philodespotos at gmail.com (Kyle Hargraves)
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:16:15 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Isolating rails model specs from their
	implementation
In-Reply-To: <f8da0f510707291250h707438daua27e204e04ada6f6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f8da0f510707291250h707438daua27e204e04ada6f6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <46ACF58F.5060306@gmail.com>

Russell Tracey wrote:
> It's my understanding that model specs (and specs in general) should
> be shielded from the implementation details, so how do i check that
> Project.active_projects only returns active projects without looking
> at assuming something about the implementation? My initial thought is
> to check each of them using one of the other exposed methods above, in
> this case...
> 
>   Project.active_projects.all? {|p| p.active? }
> 
> but then i can't work out how to spec all the other methods without
> going round in circles so that each spec would end up assuming that
> the other methods work (in this case that p.active? is working) or
> worse resorting to peeking at implementation details.

Nothing is wrong with assuming that everything else works as it should. 
In fact, it's pretty much exactly what you want: you only care about the 
behaviour of the little facet of the model you're dealing with *right 
now*. If something else doesn't work, some other spec is responsible for 
demonstrating that it's misbehaving.

As for the specific issue, I typically do something like:

Spec that active? and archived? do what they should. Those probably 
actually do require some form of implementation details -- if X column 
has Y value, it's archived, otherwise not, etc.

Then, spec archive! (and unarchive!):

   it "should archive projects" do
     @project.archive!
     project = find_that_project_again
     project.should be_archived
   end

And finally, for your finders:

   before(:each) do
     active_projects = set_up_some_active_projects
     archived_projects = set_up_some_archived_projects
   end

   it "should return only active projects" do
     all_active = Project.active_projects.all? { |p| p.active? }
     all_active.should be_true
   end

So the entirety really only hinges on active? and archived? working 
properly. And if active? is just !archived?, there's only one real spot 
from which errors will start cascading.

HTH,
Kyle

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sun Jul 29 16:21:18 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:21:18 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Isolating rails model specs from their
	implementation
In-Reply-To: <f8da0f510707291250h707438daua27e204e04ada6f6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f8da0f510707291250h707438daua27e204e04ada6f6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707291321y17a12cf2v64cd4e937d8c38a1@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/29/07, Russell Tracey <russell.tracey at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm currently taking a Rails project management app I built when
> learning Rails and adding specs to it. During the course of building
> the app the requirement that project should be archiveable was added.
> So a project is in one of two states active or archived.
>
> This led to the creation of the following methods:
>
> Project.active_projects
> Project.archived_projects
>
> @project.active?
> @project.archived?
> @project.archive!
> @project.unarchive!
>
> The current implementation of this is using a separate table of
> "visibilities" as follows:
>
> # Implementation 1 (Current)
>
> Tables:
>
>   Project
>     id name           visibility_status_id
>     1  ActiveProject                        1
>     1  ArchivedProject                     2
>
>   VisibilityStatuses
>     id name
>     1  Live
>     2  Archived
>
> But the same behavior could be implemented using a datetime column as follows:
>
> # Implementation 2
>
> Tables:
>
>   Project
>     id name            archived_at
>     1  ActiveProject   null
>     1  ArchivedProject 2007-07-29:18:57
>
> Or in fact numerous other ways e.g.
>
> # Implementation 3
>
> Army of cows:
>
> Each cow represents a project, the cows wear one of two hats
> to indicate the active/archived status of the project they represent.
>
> ...and so on.
>
> It's my understanding that model specs (and specs in general) should
> be shielded from the implementation details, so how do i check that
> Project.active_projects only returns active projects without looking
> at assuming something about the implementation? My initial thought is
> to check each of them using one of the other exposed methods above, in
> this case...
>
>   Project.active_projects.all? {|p| p.active? }
>
> but then i can't work out how to spec all the other methods without
> going round in circles so that each spec would end up assuming that
> the other methods work (in this case that p.active? is working) or
> worse resorting to peeking at implementation details.

Keep in mind that back-filling examples to existing code is a very
different process from writing the examples first, which is the
situation for which RSpec is intended. In that case, you might start
with one example like this:

describe Project do
  it " should not be active by default" do
    project = Project.create
    project.should_not be_active
  end
end

Then the next example might be that when you activate it should be active:

describe Project do
  it " should not be active by default" { ... }

  it "should be active after you activate it" do
    project = Project.create
    project.activate!
    project.should be_active
  end

  it "should show up in the list of active projects when activated" do
    project = Project.create
    project.activate!
    Project.active_projects.should include(project)
  end
end

etc.

In this second pair of examples, we never "test" the activate! method
in terms of looking at its internal effects (i.e. that it changes
something in the database), but rather through the difference in the
way the object behaves after having called the activate! method.

Make sense?

David

From russell.tracey at gmail.com  Sun Jul 29 17:09:20 2007
From: russell.tracey at gmail.com (Russell Tracey)
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:09:20 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Isolating rails model specs from their
	implementation
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707291321y17a12cf2v64cd4e937d8c38a1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f8da0f510707291250h707438daua27e204e04ada6f6@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707291321y17a12cf2v64cd4e937d8c38a1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f8da0f510707291409r6c4249ffgb80e79fbaab6bb39@mail.gmail.com>

On 29/07/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/29/07, Russell Tracey <russell.tracey at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm currently taking a Rails project management app I built when
> > learning Rails and adding specs to it. During the course of building
> > the app the requirement that project should be archiveable was added.
> > So a project is in one of two states active or archived.
> >
> > This led to the creation of the following methods:
> >
> > Project.active_projects
> > Project.archived_projects
> >
> > @project.active?
> > @project.archived?
> > @project.archive!
> > @project.unarchive!
> >
> > The current implementation of this is using a separate table of
> > "visibilities" as follows:
> >
> > # Implementation 1 (Current)
> >
> > Tables:
> >
> >   Project
> >     id name           visibility_status_id
> >     1  ActiveProject                        1
> >     1  ArchivedProject                     2
> >
> >   VisibilityStatuses
> >     id name
> >     1  Live
> >     2  Archived
> >
> > But the same behavior could be implemented using a datetime column as follows:
> >
> > # Implementation 2
> >
> > Tables:
> >
> >   Project
> >     id name            archived_at
> >     1  ActiveProject   null
> >     1  ArchivedProject 2007-07-29:18:57
> >
> > Or in fact numerous other ways e.g.
> >
> > # Implementation 3
> >
> > Army of cows:
> >
> > Each cow represents a project, the cows wear one of two hats
> > to indicate the active/archived status of the project they represent.
> >
> > ...and so on.
> >
> > It's my understanding that model specs (and specs in general) should
> > be shielded from the implementation details, so how do i check that
> > Project.active_projects only returns active projects without looking
> > at assuming something about the implementation? My initial thought is
> > to check each of them using one of the other exposed methods above, in
> > this case...
> >
> >   Project.active_projects.all? {|p| p.active? }
> >
> > but then i can't work out how to spec all the other methods without
> > going round in circles so that each spec would end up assuming that
> > the other methods work (in this case that p.active? is working) or
> > worse resorting to peeking at implementation details.
>
> Keep in mind that back-filling examples to existing code is a very
> different process from writing the examples first, which is the
> situation for which RSpec is intended. In that case, you might start
> with one example like this:
>
> describe Project do
>   it " should not be active by default" do
>     project = Project.create
>     project.should_not be_active
>   end
> end
>
> Then the next example might be that when you activate it should be active:
>
> describe Project do
>   it " should not be active by default" { ... }
>
>   it "should be active after you activate it" do
>     project = Project.create
>     project.activate!
>     project.should be_active
>   end
>
>   it "should show up in the list of active projects when activated" do
>     project = Project.create
>     project.activate!
>     Project.active_projects.should include(project)
>   end
> end
>
> etc.
>
> In this second pair of examples, we never "test" the activate! method
> in terms of looking at its internal effects (i.e. that it changes
> something in the database), but rather through the difference in the
> way the object behaves after having called the activate! method.
>
> Make sense?
>
> David
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

Yes this is making more sense now, the only remaining thing i am
wondering is, given the above examples, would specing that
active?/archived? be possible without resorting to implementation
details that Kyle wrote about. If i'm reading them correctly the
examples above spec out the behavior of activate!, active_projects and
the default state of a project after creation, but don't define the
behavior of active?

In this app the projects are actually "active" by default before being
archived at some point later. So they are only ever in one of two
states, active or archived.

I'm thinking something like this

describe Project do
  ...
  it " Not sure what this would be called?" do
   project = Project.create
   project.should be_active

   project.archive!

   project.should_not be_active
 end
end

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sun Jul 29 17:45:01 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:45:01 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Isolating rails model specs from their
	implementation
In-Reply-To: <f8da0f510707291409r6c4249ffgb80e79fbaab6bb39@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f8da0f510707291250h707438daua27e204e04ada6f6@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707291321y17a12cf2v64cd4e937d8c38a1@mail.gmail.com>
	<f8da0f510707291409r6c4249ffgb80e79fbaab6bb39@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707291445t41675558m5213776a87b0ced9@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/29/07, Russell Tracey <russell.tracey at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/07/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/29/07, Russell Tracey <russell.tracey at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm currently taking a Rails project management app I built when
> > > learning Rails and adding specs to it. During the course of building
> > > the app the requirement that project should be archiveable was added.
> > > So a project is in one of two states active or archived.
> > >
> > > This led to the creation of the following methods:
> > >
> > > Project.active_projects
> > > Project.archived_projects
> > >
> > > @project.active?
> > > @project.archived?
> > > @project.archive!
> > > @project.unarchive!
> > >
> > > The current implementation of this is using a separate table of
> > > "visibilities" as follows:
> > >
> > > # Implementation 1 (Current)
> > >
> > > Tables:
> > >
> > >   Project
> > >     id name           visibility_status_id
> > >     1  ActiveProject                        1
> > >     1  ArchivedProject                     2
> > >
> > >   VisibilityStatuses
> > >     id name
> > >     1  Live
> > >     2  Archived
> > >
> > > But the same behavior could be implemented using a datetime column as follows:
> > >
> > > # Implementation 2
> > >
> > > Tables:
> > >
> > >   Project
> > >     id name            archived_at
> > >     1  ActiveProject   null
> > >     1  ArchivedProject 2007-07-29:18:57
> > >
> > > Or in fact numerous other ways e.g.
> > >
> > > # Implementation 3
> > >
> > > Army of cows:
> > >
> > > Each cow represents a project, the cows wear one of two hats
> > > to indicate the active/archived status of the project they represent.
> > >
> > > ...and so on.
> > >
> > > It's my understanding that model specs (and specs in general) should
> > > be shielded from the implementation details, so how do i check that
> > > Project.active_projects only returns active projects without looking
> > > at assuming something about the implementation? My initial thought is
> > > to check each of them using one of the other exposed methods above, in
> > > this case...
> > >
> > >   Project.active_projects.all? {|p| p.active? }
> > >
> > > but then i can't work out how to spec all the other methods without
> > > going round in circles so that each spec would end up assuming that
> > > the other methods work (in this case that p.active? is working) or
> > > worse resorting to peeking at implementation details.
> >
> > Keep in mind that back-filling examples to existing code is a very
> > different process from writing the examples first, which is the
> > situation for which RSpec is intended. In that case, you might start
> > with one example like this:
> >
> > describe Project do
> >   it " should not be active by default" do
> >     project = Project.create
> >     project.should_not be_active
> >   end
> > end
> >
> > Then the next example might be that when you activate it should be active:
> >
> > describe Project do
> >   it " should not be active by default" { ... }
> >
> >   it "should be active after you activate it" do
> >     project = Project.create
> >     project.activate!
> >     project.should be_active
> >   end
> >
> >   it "should show up in the list of active projects when activated" do
> >     project = Project.create
> >     project.activate!
> >     Project.active_projects.should include(project)
> >   end
> > end
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > In this second pair of examples, we never "test" the activate! method
> > in terms of looking at its internal effects (i.e. that it changes
> > something in the database), but rather through the difference in the
> > way the object behaves after having called the activate! method.
> >
> > Make sense?
> >
> > David
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
>
> Yes this is making more sense now, the only remaining thing i am
> wondering is, given the above examples, would specing that
> active?/archived? be possible without resorting to implementation
> details that Kyle wrote about. If i'm reading them correctly the
> examples above spec out the behavior of activate!, active_projects and
> the default state of a project after creation, but don't define the
> behavior of active?
>
> In this app the projects are actually "active" by default before being
> archived at some point later. So they are only ever in one of two
> states, active or archived.
>
> I'm thinking something like this
>
> describe Project do
>   ...
>   it " Not sure what this would be called?" do
>    project = Project.create
>    project.should be_active
>
>    project.archive!
>
>    project.should_not be_active
>  end
> end

Changing state between expectations in one example is a TDD no-no. The
reason is that if "project.should be_active" fails, you might do
something to fix it and then find that "project.should_not be_active"
fails. If you have them in separate examples then the fact that only
one fails and not the other gives you better feedback:

describe Project do
  it "should be active when first created" do
    project = Project.create
    project.should be_active
  end

  it "should not be active after it is archived" do
    project = Project.create
    project.archive!
    project.should_not be_active
  end
end

> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sun Jul 29 17:49:36 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:49:36 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Isolating rails model specs from their
	implementation
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707291445t41675558m5213776a87b0ced9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f8da0f510707291250h707438daua27e204e04ada6f6@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707291321y17a12cf2v64cd4e937d8c38a1@mail.gmail.com>
	<f8da0f510707291409r6c4249ffgb80e79fbaab6bb39@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707291445t41675558m5213776a87b0ced9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707291449x5ce20982x6bbe32c098b906dc@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/29/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/29/07, Russell Tracey <russell.tracey at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 29/07/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/29/07, Russell Tracey <russell.tracey at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm currently taking a Rails project management app I built when
> > > > learning Rails and adding specs to it. During the course of building
> > > > the app the requirement that project should be archiveable was added.
> > > > So a project is in one of two states active or archived.
> > > >
> > > > This led to the creation of the following methods:
> > > >
> > > > Project.active_projects
> > > > Project.archived_projects
> > > >
> > > > @project.active?
> > > > @project.archived?
> > > > @project.archive!
> > > > @project.unarchive!
> > > >
> > > > The current implementation of this is using a separate table of
> > > > "visibilities" as follows:
> > > >
> > > > # Implementation 1 (Current)
> > > >
> > > > Tables:
> > > >
> > > >   Project
> > > >     id name           visibility_status_id
> > > >     1  ActiveProject                        1
> > > >     1  ArchivedProject                     2
> > > >
> > > >   VisibilityStatuses
> > > >     id name
> > > >     1  Live
> > > >     2  Archived
> > > >
> > > > But the same behavior could be implemented using a datetime column as follows:
> > > >
> > > > # Implementation 2
> > > >
> > > > Tables:
> > > >
> > > >   Project
> > > >     id name            archived_at
> > > >     1  ActiveProject   null
> > > >     1  ArchivedProject 2007-07-29:18:57
> > > >
> > > > Or in fact numerous other ways e.g.
> > > >
> > > > # Implementation 3
> > > >
> > > > Army of cows:
> > > >
> > > > Each cow represents a project, the cows wear one of two hats
> > > > to indicate the active/archived status of the project they represent.
> > > >
> > > > ...and so on.
> > > >
> > > > It's my understanding that model specs (and specs in general) should
> > > > be shielded from the implementation details, so how do i check that
> > > > Project.active_projects only returns active projects without looking
> > > > at assuming something about the implementation? My initial thought is
> > > > to check each of them using one of the other exposed methods above, in
> > > > this case...
> > > >
> > > >   Project.active_projects.all? {|p| p.active? }
> > > >
> > > > but then i can't work out how to spec all the other methods without
> > > > going round in circles so that each spec would end up assuming that
> > > > the other methods work (in this case that p.active? is working) or
> > > > worse resorting to peeking at implementation details.
> > >
> > > Keep in mind that back-filling examples to existing code is a very
> > > different process from writing the examples first, which is the
> > > situation for which RSpec is intended. In that case, you might start
> > > with one example like this:
> > >
> > > describe Project do
> > >   it " should not be active by default" do
> > >     project = Project.create
> > >     project.should_not be_active
> > >   end
> > > end
> > >
> > > Then the next example might be that when you activate it should be active:
> > >
> > > describe Project do
> > >   it " should not be active by default" { ... }
> > >
> > >   it "should be active after you activate it" do
> > >     project = Project.create
> > >     project.activate!
> > >     project.should be_active
> > >   end
> > >
> > >   it "should show up in the list of active projects when activated" do
> > >     project = Project.create
> > >     project.activate!
> > >     Project.active_projects.should include(project)
> > >   end
> > > end
> > >
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > In this second pair of examples, we never "test" the activate! method
> > > in terms of looking at its internal effects (i.e. that it changes
> > > something in the database), but rather through the difference in the
> > > way the object behaves after having called the activate! method.
> > >
> > > Make sense?
> > >
> > > David
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > >
> >
> > Yes this is making more sense now, the only remaining thing i am
> > wondering is, given the above examples, would specing that
> > active?/archived? be possible without resorting to implementation
> > details that Kyle wrote about. If i'm reading them correctly the
> > examples above spec out the behavior of activate!, active_projects and
> > the default state of a project after creation, but don't define the
> > behavior of active?
> >
> > In this app the projects are actually "active" by default before being
> > archived at some point later. So they are only ever in one of two
> > states, active or archived.
> >
> > I'm thinking something like this
> >
> > describe Project do
> >   ...
> >   it " Not sure what this would be called?" do
> >    project = Project.create
> >    project.should be_active
> >
> >    project.archive!
> >
> >    project.should_not be_active
> >  end
> > end
>
> Changing state between expectations in one example is a TDD no-no. The
> reason is that if "project.should be_active" fails, you might do
> something to fix it and then find that "project.should_not be_active"
> fails. If you have them in separate examples then the fact that only
> one fails and not the other gives you better feedback:
>
> describe Project do
>   it "should be active when first created" do
>     project = Project.create
>     project.should be_active
>   end
>
>   it "should not be active after it is archived" do
>     project = Project.create
>     project.archive!
>     project.should_not be_active
>   end
> end

FYI - the two together also tell a more complete story:

Project
- should be active when first created
- should not be active after it is archived

Cheers,
David

From raasdnil at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 05:00:26 2007
From: raasdnil at gmail.com (Mikel Lindsaar)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:00:26 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707290557k36e2214br54ad890e364cd332@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707290557k36e2214br54ad890e364cd332@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Nathan,

What you are sayiing is correct, and in terms of Ruby on Rails, BDD
_IS_ View Driven development... or at least it should be IMHO.

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters in a Rails App is
the Behaviour shown to the user, who has as their only interface, the
View.

The user can not and should not interact with any models.  The user
MIGHT interact with a controller... (say, having a file download which
doesn't get sent through a view), but really... views ARE the
behaviour of a Rails App.

I found the same thing as you... started with spec'ing my models,
doing great, getting to controllers.. doing OK... getting to views and
going "Where did I go wrong?"

Starting with views and working "backwards" from a Test::Unit point of
view has definately opened up a lot of RSpec doors for me.

My $0.02.

Mikel


On 7/29/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/29/07, Nathan Sutton <nathan.sutton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I want to do View-Driven-Development by Behavior-Driven-Development,
> > but I'm stumped really where to begin.  Ideally I'd like to see a
> > tutorial or something that walks though it, or browse through some
> > projects using RSpec for the views, but I can't seem to find any.
> > Maybe I'm not looking hard enough or I don't know where to look.
>
> http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/articles/2006/11/06/view-spec-tutorial
>
> Cheers,
> David
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From has.sox at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 05:29:56 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:29:56 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
In-Reply-To: <57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707290557k36e2214br54ad890e364cd332@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707300229n2942cf55p34a387de8c209e74@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Nathan,
>
> What you are sayiing is correct, and in terms of Ruby on Rails, BDD
> _IS_ View Driven development... or at least it should be IMHO.
>
> At the end of the day, the only thing that matters in a Rails App is
> the Behaviour shown to the user, who has as their only interface, the
> View.
>
> The user can not and should not interact with any models.  The user
> MIGHT interact with a controller... (say, having a file download which
> doesn't get sent through a view), but really... views ARE the
> behaviour of a Rails App.
>
> I found the same thing as you... started with spec'ing my models,
> doing great, getting to controllers.. doing OK... getting to views and
> going "Where did I go wrong?"
>
> Starting with views and working "backwards" from a Test::Unit point of
> view has definately opened up a lot of RSpec doors for me.
>
> My $0.02.
>
> Mikel


I think one thing that would make view first development a really powerful
tool with rspec is a way to keep track of erroneous calls to model methods.


One thing that I am consistently worried about is specing a method in one
place via mocks, a la the view, but forgetting to include that method in the
model.

The way I get around this at the moment, is when I find a method that I want
to have that isn't there yet, I open up the spec for the model and add an
it "should have method bla"

so that it shows up in the pending report.  Of course this means that I have
to have the model spec all setup in the first place kind of defeating the
purpose of view first.  Well almost.  If the view is generated via an rspec
generator then all that is setup.

What would be fantastic is if mock had an option to report calls to
non-existent methods.

Something like mock( User, :report_pending_methods => :true )

Is there another way to do this that is already in practice?

Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070730/5d218f2d/attachment.html 

From raasdnil at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 06:49:28 2007
From: raasdnil at gmail.com (Mikel Lindsaar)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:49:28 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707300229n2942cf55p34a387de8c209e74@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707290557k36e2214br54ad890e364cd332@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300229n2942cf55p34a387de8c209e74@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57a815bf0707300349gc71c878s837548c50a20896b@mail.gmail.com>

I find myself doing the same thing... the, open the model and type in
the it shoulds...

I ws thinking along the same line... probably all that would be needed
is a rake task that hooks into the Mock class and runs all the specs
taking not of all the stubs and mocks method calls that are made.

Then it could PRODUCE the it shoulds...

@model = mock_model(People, :id => 1, :name => "Bob")
@model.should_receive(:alive?).and_return(true)

# rake spec:find_fakes

produces:

describe People "automatically" do

  it "should have a name"

  it "should respond to alive?"

end

Now... that would be cool....

Regards

Mikel

On 7/30/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Nathan,
> >
> > What you are sayiing is correct, and in terms of Ruby on Rails, BDD
> > _IS_ View Driven development... or at least it should be IMHO.
> >
> > At the end of the day, the only thing that matters in a Rails App is
> > the Behaviour shown to the user, who has as their only interface, the
> > View.
> >
> > The user can not and should not interact with any models.  The user
> > MIGHT interact with a controller... (say, having a file download which
> > doesn't get sent through a view), but really... views ARE the
> > behaviour of a Rails App.
> >
> > I found the same thing as you... started with spec'ing my models,
> > doing great, getting to controllers.. doing OK... getting to views and
> > going "Where did I go wrong?"
> >
> > Starting with views and working "backwards" from a Test::Unit point of
> > view has definately opened up a lot of RSpec doors for me.
> >
> > My $0.02.
> >
> > Mikel
>
> I think one thing that would make view first development a really powerful
> tool with rspec is a way to keep track of erroneous calls to model methods.
>
> One thing that I am consistently worried about is specing a method in one
> place via mocks, a la the view, but forgetting to include that method in the
> model.
>
> The way I get around this at the moment, is when I find a method that I want
> to have that isn't there yet, I open up the spec for the model and add an
> it "should have method bla"
>
> so that it shows up in the pending report.  Of course this means that I have
> to have the model spec all setup in the first place kind of defeating the
> purpose of view first.  Well almost.  If the view is generated via an rspec
> generator then all that is setup.
>
> What would be fantastic is if mock had an option to report calls to
> non-existent methods.
>
> Something like mock( User, :report_pending_methods => :true )
>
> Is there another way to do this that is already in practice?
>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 07:10:07 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:10:07 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
In-Reply-To: <57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707290557k36e2214br54ad890e364cd332@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707300410p3c0e6d40rfc4ce352056e214@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Nathan,
> Starting with views and working "backwards" from a Test::Unit point of
> view has definately opened up a lot of RSpec doors for me.

I've definitely seen advice to start with models before, but I've not
seen anything that says "if you're using Test::Unit, you should start
with models". It's more a development philosophy than a tool issue.

Cheers,
David

From raasdnil at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 07:23:59 2007
From: raasdnil at gmail.com (Mikel Lindsaar)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:23:59 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707300410p3c0e6d40rfc4ce352056e214@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707290557k36e2214br54ad890e364cd332@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707300410p3c0e6d40rfc4ce352056e214@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57a815bf0707300423n5e1089d4ic96eefc59c7e8750@mail.gmail.com>

David, true :)

I think I was more mixing up "Test::Unit" and the unit directory under
test in terms of Rails... the unit tests are to the models... ergo...
my definitions were mixed up :)

Anyway... back to coding :)

Mikel

On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Nathan,
> > Starting with views and working "backwards" from a Test::Unit point of
> > view has definately opened up a lot of RSpec doors for me.
>
> I've definitely seen advice to start with models before, but I've not
> seen anything that says "if you're using Test::Unit, you should start
> with models". It's more a development philosophy than a tool issue.
>
> Cheers,
> David
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 07:25:13 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:25:13 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
In-Reply-To: <57a815bf0707300423n5e1089d4ic96eefc59c7e8750@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707290557k36e2214br54ad890e364cd332@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707300410p3c0e6d40rfc4ce352056e214@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300423n5e1089d4ic96eefc59c7e8750@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707300425y5dbd9c56yda6b36284369b837@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> David, true :)
>
> I think I was more mixing up "Test::Unit" and the unit directory under
> test in terms of Rails... the unit tests are to the models... ergo...
> my definitions were mixed up :)

Makes sense.

Thanks for playing.

Cheers,
David

>
> Anyway... back to coding :)
>
> Mikel
>
> On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Dear Nathan,
> > > Starting with views and working "backwards" from a Test::Unit point of
> > > view has definately opened up a lot of RSpec doors for me.
> >
> > I've definitely seen advice to start with models before, but I've not
> > seen anything that says "if you're using Test::Unit, you should start
> > with models". It's more a development philosophy than a tool issue.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > David
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From has.sox at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 07:39:52 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:39:52 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
In-Reply-To: <57a815bf0707300349gc71c878s837548c50a20896b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707290557k36e2214br54ad890e364cd332@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300229n2942cf55p34a387de8c209e74@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300349gc71c878s837548c50a20896b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707300439r3f4a81dcncb7095024b811436@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I find myself doing the same thing... the, open the model and type in
> the it shoulds...


I think it would need to do a bit more.

If I call mock_model( User ) and the User class doesn't exist yet that will
blow it up.

I guess at that point you would need to create the User class. :(
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070730/0034b1ff/attachment.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 07:43:01 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:43:01 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
In-Reply-To: <57a815bf0707300349gc71c878s837548c50a20896b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707290557k36e2214br54ad890e364cd332@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300229n2942cf55p34a387de8c209e74@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300349gc71c878s837548c50a20896b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707300443v175f54e6x4f522be457c7c8a3@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> I find myself doing the same thing... the, open the model and type in
> the it shoulds...
>
> I ws thinking along the same line... probably all that would be needed
> is a rake task that hooks into the Mock class and runs all the specs
> taking not of all the stubs and mocks method calls that are made.
>
> Then it could PRODUCE the it shoulds...
>
> @model = mock_model(People, :id => 1, :name => "Bob")
> @model.should_receive(:alive?).and_return(true)
>
> # rake spec:find_fakes
>
> produces:
>
> describe People "automatically" do
>
>   it "should have a name"
>
>   it "should respond to alive?"
>
> end
>
> Now... that would be cool....

I would tend to disagree. RSpec is a Behaviour Driven Development
tool. The idea is that you write a small example of behaviour FIRST,
and use that example to drive the implementation. The reason you use
examples to drive implementation comes from the idea in Test Driven
Development that it will lead to tighter, more focused and more
flexible implementations.

If your examples come after the code, whether they are generated or
you write them yourself, then you are losing out quite a bit of value
of the process with which RSpec is aligned.

Secondly, having a name is not behaviour. Using it might be. Or how
you set it might be. For example:

describe Thing do
  it "should use the first initializer argument as its name" do
    Thing.new("Jo?o").name.should == "Jo?o"
  end

  it "should be alive when first created" do
    Thing.new.should be_alive
  end
end

Implicit in these examples are the fact that Thing has a name and
responds to "alive?", but those are just artifacts in support of the
behaviour.

That all make sense?

From has.sox at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 07:47:47 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:47:47 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707300443v175f54e6x4f522be457c7c8a3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707290557k36e2214br54ad890e364cd332@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300229n2942cf55p34a387de8c209e74@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300349gc71c878s837548c50a20896b@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707300443v175f54e6x4f522be457c7c8a3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707300447w675714d2n7259776546ed750d@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I find myself doing the same thing... the, open the model and type in
> > the it shoulds...
> >
> > I ws thinking along the same line... probably all that would be needed
> > is a rake task that hooks into the Mock class and runs all the specs
> > taking not of all the stubs and mocks method calls that are made.
> >
> > Then it could PRODUCE the it shoulds...
> >
> > @model = mock_model(People, :id => 1, :name => "Bob")
> > @model.should_receive(:alive?).and_return(true)
> >
> > # rake spec:find_fakes
> >
> > produces:
> >
> > describe People "automatically" do
> >
> >   it "should have a name"
> >
> >   it "should respond to alive?"
> >
> > end
> >
> > Now... that would be cool....
>
> I would tend to disagree. RSpec is a Behaviour Driven Development
> tool. The idea is that you write a small example of behaviour FIRST,
> and use that example to drive the implementation. The reason you use
> examples to drive implementation comes from the idea in Test Driven
> Development that it will lead to tighter, more focused and more
> flexible implementations.
>
> If your examples come after the code, whether they are generated or
> you write them yourself, then you are losing out quite a bit of value
> of the process with which RSpec is aligned.
>
> Secondly, having a name is not behaviour. Using it might be. Or how
> you set it might be. For example:
>
> describe Thing do
>   it "should use the first initializer argument as its name" do
>     Thing.new("Jo?o").name.should == "Jo?o"
>   end
>
>   it "should be alive when first created" do
>     Thing.new.should be_alive
>   end
> end
>
> Implicit in these examples are the fact that Thing has a name and
> responds to "alive?", but those are just artifacts in support of the
> behaviour.
>
> That all make sense?


In a fairly abstract way.  But how do you keep track of what methods have
been stubbed or mocked?

>From the above Thing.new.alive?  will need to be defined.  This seems to be
the spec for Thing, but if in a view I said

it "should do_stuff if @thing is alive" do

  @thing = mock_model( Thing )
  @thing.stub!( :alive? ).and_return( true )
  controller.should_receive( :do_stuff )
  do_get

end

How do I run the view first without Thing, and also keep track of alive?
being decalred on the Thing instance?

-Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070730/f78d7756/attachment.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 08:06:28 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 07:06:28 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707300447w675714d2n7259776546ed750d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707290557k36e2214br54ad890e364cd332@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300229n2942cf55p34a387de8c209e74@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300349gc71c878s837548c50a20896b@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707300443v175f54e6x4f522be457c7c8a3@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300447w675714d2n7259776546ed750d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707300506h313c2046y2cd4c8b5423ebe72@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/30/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I find myself doing the same thing... the, open the model and type in
> > > the it shoulds...
> > >
> > > I ws thinking along the same line... probably all that would be needed
> > > is a rake task that hooks into the Mock class and runs all the specs
> > > taking not of all the stubs and mocks method calls that are made.
> > >
> > > Then it could PRODUCE the it shoulds...
> > >
> > > @model = mock_model(People, :id => 1, :name => "Bob")
> > > @model.should_receive(:alive?).and_return(true)
> > >
> > > # rake spec:find_fakes
> > >
> > > produces:
> > >
> > > describe People "automatically" do
> > >
> > >   it "should have a name"
> > >
> > >   it "should respond to alive?"
> > >
> > > end
> > >
> > > Now... that would be cool....
> >
> > I would tend to disagree. RSpec is a Behaviour Driven Development
> > tool. The idea is that you write a small example of behaviour FIRST,
> > and use that example to drive the implementation. The reason you use
> > examples to drive implementation comes from the idea in Test Driven
> > Development that it will lead to tighter, more focused and more
> > flexible implementations.
> >
> > If your examples come after the code, whether they are generated or
> > you write them yourself, then you are losing out quite a bit of value
> > of the process with which RSpec is aligned.
> >
> > Secondly, having a name is not behaviour. Using it might be. Or how
> > you set it might be. For example:
> >
> > describe Thing do
> >   it "should use the first initializer argument as its name" do
> >     Thing.new("Jo?o").name.should == "Jo?o"
> >   end
> >
> >   it "should be alive when first created" do
> >     Thing.new.should be_alive
> >   end
> > end
> >
> > Implicit in these examples are the fact that Thing has a name and
> > responds to "alive?", but those are just artifacts in support of the
> > behaviour.
> >
> > That all make sense?
>
> In a fairly abstract way.  But how do you keep track of what methods have
> been stubbed or mocked?
>
> From the above Thing.new.alive?  will need to be defined.  This seems to be
> the spec for Thing, but if in a view I said
>
> it "should do_stuff if @thing is alive" do
>
>   @thing = mock_model( Thing )
>   @thing.stub!( :alive? ).and_return( true )
>   controller.should_receive( :do_stuff )
>   do_get
>
> end
>
> How do I run the view first without Thing,

If you're using mock_model and the constant Thing, then you have to
create Thing to get that example to run. Admittedly, having to create
that model class is a distraction from the flow, but it is a very
small distraction that has never really bothered me that much. I
imagine that we could tweak mock_model to accept a String, or perhaps
somebody with stronger TextMate chops than mine could submit a patch
to the TextMate bundle that would let you click on Thing and create a
Thing model.

> and also keep track of alive?
> being decalred on the Thing instance?

This is something that has come up on this list and in RFEs a few
times. The most promising idea is to have a command line switch that
would look at any mock that was passed a class name and ensure that
the class responds to any mocked or stubbed methods. But even that
would fall apart as soon as you start using any metaprogramming
techniques to change the nature of an object at runtime.

For me, the answer to keeping track of mocked methods is automated
end-to-end tests. Either in browser, or something like Rails'
integration tests (assuming Rails), or (soon) rbehave's story runner
(which is now being integrated into rspec).

Cheers,
David

From has.sox at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 08:29:39 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:29:39 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707300506h313c2046y2cd4c8b5423ebe72@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707290557k36e2214br54ad890e364cd332@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300229n2942cf55p34a387de8c209e74@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300349gc71c878s837548c50a20896b@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707300443v175f54e6x4f522be457c7c8a3@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300447w675714d2n7259776546ed750d@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707300506h313c2046y2cd4c8b5423ebe72@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707300529k5eebf183n58705f6c66a20721@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/30/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I find myself doing the same thing... the, open the model and type
> in
> > > > the it shoulds...
> > > >
> > > > I ws thinking along the same line... probably all that would be
> needed
> > > > is a rake task that hooks into the Mock class and runs all the specs
> > > > taking not of all the stubs and mocks method calls that are made.
> > > >
> > > > Then it could PRODUCE the it shoulds...
> > > >
> > > > @model = mock_model(People, :id => 1, :name => "Bob")
> > > > @model.should_receive(:alive?).and_return(true)
> > > >
> > > > # rake spec:find_fakes
> > > >
> > > > produces:
> > > >
> > > > describe People "automatically" do
> > > >
> > > >   it "should have a name"
> > > >
> > > >   it "should respond to alive?"
> > > >
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > > Now... that would be cool....
> > >
> > > I would tend to disagree. RSpec is a Behaviour Driven Development
> > > tool. The idea is that you write a small example of behaviour FIRST,
> > > and use that example to drive the implementation. The reason you use
> > > examples to drive implementation comes from the idea in Test Driven
> > > Development that it will lead to tighter, more focused and more
> > > flexible implementations.
> > >
> > > If your examples come after the code, whether they are generated or
> > > you write them yourself, then you are losing out quite a bit of value
> > > of the process with which RSpec is aligned.
> > >
> > > Secondly, having a name is not behaviour. Using it might be. Or how
> > > you set it might be. For example:
> > >
> > > describe Thing do
> > >   it "should use the first initializer argument as its name" do
> > >     Thing.new("Jo?o").name.should == "Jo?o"
> > >   end
> > >
> > >   it "should be alive when first created" do
> > >     Thing.new.should be_alive
> > >   end
> > > end
> > >
> > > Implicit in these examples are the fact that Thing has a name and
> > > responds to "alive?", but those are just artifacts in support of the
> > > behaviour.
> > >
> > > That all make sense?
> >
> > In a fairly abstract way.  But how do you keep track of what methods
> have
> > been stubbed or mocked?
> >
> > From the above Thing.new.alive?  will need to be defined.  This seems to
> be
> > the spec for Thing, but if in a view I said
> >
> > it "should do_stuff if @thing is alive" do
> >
> >   @thing = mock_model( Thing )
> >   @thing.stub!( :alive? ).and_return( true )
> >   controller.should_receive( :do_stuff )
> >   do_get
> >
> > end
> >
> > How do I run the view first without Thing,
>
> If you're using mock_model and the constant Thing, then you have to
> create Thing to get that example to run. Admittedly, having to create
> that model class is a distraction from the flow, but it is a very
> small distraction that has never really bothered me that much. I
> imagine that we could tweak mock_model to accept a String, or perhaps
> somebody with stronger TextMate chops than mine could submit a patch
> to the TextMate bundle that would let you click on Thing and create a
> Thing model.
>
> > and also keep track of alive?
> > being decalred on the Thing instance?
>
> This is something that has come up on this list and in RFEs a few
> times. The most promising idea is to have a command line switch that
> would look at any mock that was passed a class name and ensure that
> the class responds to any mocked or stubbed methods. But even that
> would fall apart as soon as you start using any metaprogramming
> techniques to change the nature of an object at runtime.



David,

Is it not possible to check if a mocked model actually responds to a method
call at the point of it being called?

Then capture any that aren't on the original object and print out warnings
similar to the pending notices?

Please excuse my ignorance.  I'm sure I've oversimplified this dramatically.
;)

-Daniel


For me, the answer to keeping track of mocked methods is automated
> end-to-end tests. Either in browser, or something like Rails'
> integration tests (assuming Rails), or (soon) rbehave's story runner
> (which is now being integrated into rspec).
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070730/4022c59b/attachment-0001.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 08:36:00 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 07:36:00 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707300529k5eebf183n58705f6c66a20721@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707290557k36e2214br54ad890e364cd332@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300229n2942cf55p34a387de8c209e74@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300349gc71c878s837548c50a20896b@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707300443v175f54e6x4f522be457c7c8a3@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300447w675714d2n7259776546ed750d@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707300506h313c2046y2cd4c8b5423ebe72@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300529k5eebf183n58705f6c66a20721@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707300536w4e7f45c8y77b9a3d295e3ddb9@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/30/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/30/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar < raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I find myself doing the same thing... the, open the model and type
> in
> > > > > the it shoulds...
> > > > >
> > > > > I ws thinking along the same line... probably all that would be
> needed
> > > > > is a rake task that hooks into the Mock class and runs all the specs
> > > > > taking not of all the stubs and mocks method calls that are made.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then it could PRODUCE the it shoulds...
> > > > >
> > > > > @model = mock_model(People, :id => 1, :name => "Bob")
> > > > > @model.should_receive(:alive?).and_return(true)
> > > > >
> > > > > # rake spec:find_fakes
> > > > >
> > > > > produces:
> > > > >
> > > > > describe People "automatically" do
> > > > >
> > > > >   it "should have a name"
> > > > >
> > > > >   it "should respond to alive?"
> > > > >
> > > > > end
> > > > >
> > > > > Now... that would be cool....
> > > >
> > > > I would tend to disagree. RSpec is a Behaviour Driven Development
> > > > tool. The idea is that you write a small example of behaviour FIRST,
> > > > and use that example to drive the implementation. The reason you use
> > > > examples to drive implementation comes from the idea in Test Driven
> > > > Development that it will lead to tighter, more focused and more
> > > > flexible implementations.
> > > >
> > > > If your examples come after the code, whether they are generated or
> > > > you write them yourself, then you are losing out quite a bit of value
> > > > of the process with which RSpec is aligned.
> > > >
> > > > Secondly, having a name is not behaviour. Using it might be. Or how
> > > > you set it might be. For example:
> > > >
> > > > describe Thing do
> > > >   it "should use the first initializer argument as its name" do
> > > >     Thing.new("Jo?o").name.should == "Jo?o"
> > > >   end
> > > >
> > > >   it "should be alive when first created" do
> > > >     Thing.new.should be_alive
> > > >   end
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > > Implicit in these examples are the fact that Thing has a name and
> > > > responds to "alive?", but those are just artifacts in support of the
> > > > behaviour.
> > > >
> > > > That all make sense?
> > >
> > > In a fairly abstract way.  But how do you keep track of what methods
> have
> > > been stubbed or mocked?
> > >
> > > From the above Thing.new.alive?  will need to be defined.  This seems to
> be
> > > the spec for Thing, but if in a view I said
> > >
> > > it "should do_stuff if @thing is alive" do
> > >
> > >   @thing = mock_model( Thing )
> > >   @thing.stub!( :alive? ).and_return( true )
> > >   controller.should_receive( :do_stuff )
> > >   do_get
> > >
> > > end
> > >
> > > How do I run the view first without Thing,
> >
> > If you're using mock_model and the constant Thing, then you have to
> > create Thing to get that example to run. Admittedly, having to create
> > that model class is a distraction from the flow, but it is a very
> > small distraction that has never really bothered me that much. I
> > imagine that we could tweak mock_model to accept a String, or perhaps
> > somebody with stronger TextMate chops than mine could submit a patch
> > to the TextMate bundle that would let you click on Thing and create a
> > Thing model.
> >
> > > and also keep track of alive?
> > > being decalred on the Thing instance?
> >
> > This is something that has come up on this list and in RFEs a few
> > times. The most promising idea is to have a command line switch that
> > would look at any mock that was passed a class name and ensure that
> > the class responds to any mocked or stubbed methods. But even that
> > would fall apart as soon as you start using any metaprogramming
> > techniques to change the nature of an object at runtime.
>
>
> David,
>
> Is it not possible to check if a mocked model actually responds to a method
> call at the point of it being called?
>
> Then capture any that aren't on the original object and print out warnings
> similar to the pending notices?
>
> Please excuse my ignorance.  I'm sure I've oversimplified this dramatically.

Actually, that doesn't sound ignorant at all. I was thinking about it
differently.

Wanna take a crack at a patch? Here's the relevant RFE:

http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=5064&group_id=797&atid=3152

> ;)
>
>  -Daniel
>
> > For me, the answer to keeping track of mocked methods is automated
> > end-to-end tests. Either in browser, or something like Rails'
> > integration tests (assuming Rails), or (soon) rbehave's story runner
> > (which is now being integrated into rspec).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > David
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From has.sox at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 08:40:16 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:40:16 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707300536w4e7f45c8y77b9a3d295e3ddb9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707290557k36e2214br54ad890e364cd332@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300229n2942cf55p34a387de8c209e74@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300349gc71c878s837548c50a20896b@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707300443v175f54e6x4f522be457c7c8a3@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300447w675714d2n7259776546ed750d@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707300506h313c2046y2cd4c8b5423ebe72@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300529k5eebf183n58705f6c66a20721@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707300536w4e7f45c8y77b9a3d295e3ddb9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707300540i5cad9c81n1173ecaf9ef6a78e@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/30/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/30/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar < raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I find myself doing the same thing... the, open the model and
> type
> > in
> > > > > > the it shoulds...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I ws thinking along the same line... probably all that would be
> > needed
> > > > > > is a rake task that hooks into the Mock class and runs all the
> specs
> > > > > > taking not of all the stubs and mocks method calls that are
> made.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then it could PRODUCE the it shoulds...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @model = mock_model(People, :id => 1, :name => "Bob")
> > > > > > @model.should_receive(:alive?).and_return(true)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > # rake spec:find_fakes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > produces:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > describe People "automatically" do
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   it "should have a name"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   it "should respond to alive?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > end
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now... that would be cool....
> > > > >
> > > > > I would tend to disagree. RSpec is a Behaviour Driven Development
> > > > > tool. The idea is that you write a small example of behaviour
> FIRST,
> > > > > and use that example to drive the implementation. The reason you
> use
> > > > > examples to drive implementation comes from the idea in Test
> Driven
> > > > > Development that it will lead to tighter, more focused and more
> > > > > flexible implementations.
> > > > >
> > > > > If your examples come after the code, whether they are generated
> or
> > > > > you write them yourself, then you are losing out quite a bit of
> value
> > > > > of the process with which RSpec is aligned.
> > > > >
> > > > > Secondly, having a name is not behaviour. Using it might be. Or
> how
> > > > > you set it might be. For example:
> > > > >
> > > > > describe Thing do
> > > > >   it "should use the first initializer argument as its name" do
> > > > >     Thing.new("Jo?o").name.should == "Jo?o"
> > > > >   end
> > > > >
> > > > >   it "should be alive when first created" do
> > > > >     Thing.new.should be_alive
> > > > >   end
> > > > > end
> > > > >
> > > > > Implicit in these examples are the fact that Thing has a name and
> > > > > responds to "alive?", but those are just artifacts in support of
> the
> > > > > behaviour.
> > > > >
> > > > > That all make sense?
> > > >
> > > > In a fairly abstract way.  But how do you keep track of what methods
> > have
> > > > been stubbed or mocked?
> > > >
> > > > From the above Thing.new.alive?  will need to be defined.  This
> seems to
> > be
> > > > the spec for Thing, but if in a view I said
> > > >
> > > > it "should do_stuff if @thing is alive" do
> > > >
> > > >   @thing = mock_model( Thing )
> > > >   @thing.stub!( :alive? ).and_return( true )
> > > >   controller.should_receive( :do_stuff )
> > > >   do_get
> > > >
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > > How do I run the view first without Thing,
> > >
> > > If you're using mock_model and the constant Thing, then you have to
> > > create Thing to get that example to run. Admittedly, having to create
> > > that model class is a distraction from the flow, but it is a very
> > > small distraction that has never really bothered me that much. I
> > > imagine that we could tweak mock_model to accept a String, or perhaps
> > > somebody with stronger TextMate chops than mine could submit a patch
> > > to the TextMate bundle that would let you click on Thing and create a
> > > Thing model.
> > >
> > > > and also keep track of alive?
> > > > being decalred on the Thing instance?
> > >
> > > This is something that has come up on this list and in RFEs a few
> > > times. The most promising idea is to have a command line switch that
> > > would look at any mock that was passed a class name and ensure that
> > > the class responds to any mocked or stubbed methods. But even that
> > > would fall apart as soon as you start using any metaprogramming
> > > techniques to change the nature of an object at runtime.
> >
> >
> > David,
> >
> > Is it not possible to check if a mocked model actually responds to a
> method
> > call at the point of it being called?
> >
> > Then capture any that aren't on the original object and print out
> warnings
> > similar to the pending notices?
> >
> > Please excuse my ignorance.  I'm sure I've oversimplified this
> dramatically.
>
> Actually, that doesn't sound ignorant at all. I was thinking about it
> differently.
>
> Wanna take a crack at a patch? Here's the relevant RFE:
>
>
> http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=5064&group_id=797&atid=3152



Sure I'll try.  I am not at all familiar with Rspec internals though.


> ;)
> >
> >  -Daniel
> >
> > > For me, the answer to keeping track of mocked methods is automated
> > > end-to-end tests. Either in browser, or something like Rails'
> > > integration tests (assuming Rails), or (soon) rbehave's story runner
> > > (which is now being integrated into rspec).
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070730/c9666979/attachment.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 08:44:39 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 07:44:39 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707300540i5cad9c81n1173ecaf9ef6a78e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300229n2942cf55p34a387de8c209e74@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300349gc71c878s837548c50a20896b@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707300443v175f54e6x4f522be457c7c8a3@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300447w675714d2n7259776546ed750d@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707300506h313c2046y2cd4c8b5423ebe72@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300529k5eebf183n58705f6c66a20721@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707300536w4e7f45c8y77b9a3d295e3ddb9@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300540i5cad9c81n1173ecaf9ef6a78e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707300544v7349e8epcd8f1e7ddaf0e40f@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/30/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/30/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 7/30/07, Daniel N < has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar < raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I find myself doing the same thing... the, open the model and
> type
> > > in
> > > > > > > the it shoulds...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I ws thinking along the same line... probably all that would be
> > > needed
> > > > > > > is a rake task that hooks into the Mock class and runs all the
> specs
> > > > > > > taking not of all the stubs and mocks method calls that are
> made.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then it could PRODUCE the it shoulds...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > @model = mock_model(People, :id => 1, :name => "Bob")
> > > > > > > @model.should_receive(:alive?).and_return(true)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > # rake spec:find_fakes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > produces:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > describe People "automatically" do
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   it "should have a name"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   it "should respond to alive?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > end
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now... that would be cool....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would tend to disagree. RSpec is a Behaviour Driven Development
> > > > > > tool. The idea is that you write a small example of behaviour
> FIRST,
> > > > > > and use that example to drive the implementation. The reason you
> use
> > > > > > examples to drive implementation comes from the idea in Test
> Driven
> > > > > > Development that it will lead to tighter, more focused and more
> > > > > > flexible implementations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If your examples come after the code, whether they are generated
> or
> > > > > > you write them yourself, then you are losing out quite a bit of
> value
> > > > > > of the process with which RSpec is aligned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Secondly, having a name is not behaviour. Using it might be. Or
> how
> > > > > > you set it might be. For example:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > describe Thing do
> > > > > >   it "should use the first initializer argument as its name" do
> > > > > >     Thing.new("Jo?o").name.should == "Jo?o"
> > > > > >   end
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   it "should be alive when first created" do
> > > > > >     Thing.new.should be_alive
> > > > > >   end
> > > > > > end
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Implicit in these examples are the fact that Thing has a name and
> > > > > > responds to "alive?", but those are just artifacts in support of
> the
> > > > > > behaviour.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That all make sense?
> > > > >
> > > > > In a fairly abstract way.  But how do you keep track of what methods
> > > have
> > > > > been stubbed or mocked?
> > > > >
> > > > > From the above Thing.new.alive?  will need to be defined.  This
> seems to
> > > be
> > > > > the spec for Thing, but if in a view I said
> > > > >
> > > > > it "should do_stuff if @thing is alive" do
> > > > >
> > > > >   @thing = mock_model( Thing )
> > > > >   @thing.stub!( :alive? ).and_return( true )
> > > > >   controller.should_receive( :do_stuff )
> > > > >   do_get
> > > > >
> > > > > end
> > > > >
> > > > > How do I run the view first without Thing,
> > > >
> > > > If you're using mock_model and the constant Thing, then you have to
> > > > create Thing to get that example to run. Admittedly, having to create
> > > > that model class is a distraction from the flow, but it is a very
> > > > small distraction that has never really bothered me that much. I
> > > > imagine that we could tweak mock_model to accept a String, or perhaps
> > > > somebody with stronger TextMate chops than mine could submit a patch
> > > > to the TextMate bundle that would let you click on Thing and create a
> > > > Thing model.
> > > >
> > > > > and also keep track of alive?
> > > > > being decalred on the Thing instance?
> > > >
> > > > This is something that has come up on this list and in RFEs a few
> > > > times. The most promising idea is to have a command line switch that
> > > > would look at any mock that was passed a class name and ensure that
> > > > the class responds to any mocked or stubbed methods. But even that
> > > > would fall apart as soon as you start using any metaprogramming
> > > > techniques to change the nature of an object at runtime.
> > >
> > >
> > > David,
> > >
> > > Is it not possible to check if a mocked model actually responds to a
> method
> > > call at the point of it being called?
> > >
> > > Then capture any that aren't on the original object and print out
> warnings
> > > similar to the pending notices?
> > >
> > > Please excuse my ignorance.  I'm sure I've oversimplified this
> dramatically.
> >
> > Actually, that doesn't sound ignorant at all. I was thinking about it
> > differently.
> >
> > Wanna take a crack at a patch? Here's the relevant RFE:
> >
> >
> http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=5064&group_id=797&atid=3152
>
>
> Sure I'll try.  I am not at all familiar with Rspec internals though.

This is specific to the mocking framework, and should work for any
application (rails or not), so you should be able to just focus on
that part of the system.

>
> > > ;)
> > >
> > >  -Daniel
> > >
> > > > For me, the answer to keeping track of mocked methods is automated
> > > > end-to-end tests. Either in browser, or something like Rails'
> > > > integration tests (assuming Rails), or (soon) rbehave's story runner
> > > > (which is now being integrated into rspec).
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From raasdnil at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 09:19:31 2007
From: raasdnil at gmail.com (Mikel Lindsaar)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:19:31 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707300443v175f54e6x4f522be457c7c8a3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707290557k36e2214br54ad890e364cd332@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300229n2942cf55p34a387de8c209e74@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300349gc71c878s837548c50a20896b@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707300443v175f54e6x4f522be457c7c8a3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57a815bf0707300619y5dcfdeb1w6c4e0f9a13eb7cc2@mail.gmail.com>

> I would tend to disagree. RSpec is a Behaviour Driven Development
> tool. The idea is that you write a small example of behaviour FIRST,
> and use that example to drive the implementation. The reason you use
> examples to drive implementation comes from the idea in Test Driven
> Development that it will lead to tighter, more focused and more
> flexible implementations.
>
> That all make sense?

Yes, that makes sense.

But I am thinking more of on the side of having the situation where
you are spec'ing Thing and Thing has to call People or interact with
people.... tracking those interactions and the interfaces used would
be something needed...

Because those interfaces are the tool we use to get the behaviour out of People.

In the present (unless I am missing something) the cycle of action
goes something like:

I spec out the behaviours of a view (say it is the dashboard on 37signals).

This view has a lot of interactions with other Classes.. all over the
place.  But right _now_ I am doing the view, so I mock out all of the
other classes and just focus in on the View that I am working on.

Good... all specs pass, the page looks presentable... now what?

Well... go code up the controller responsible for the view.  That's a
no brainer, for the view's controller....

But then what is the best practice from here for all the other models
it talks to?

Walk through the view spec line by line finding each mock'd model and
taking each one and coding the spec and then the code...? (sounds
awfully unDRY... as, really, you have already specified a behaviour
for the model by stubbing or mocking it out....)  Surely this is a
good task for a computer which is good at doing the very repetative
and manual action of "Go find me all the behaviours specified out for
this class that other classes need so that they can work".

Assuming you went ahead and cleaned up all those views, what is the
best way to know you didn't miss a class call?  Or am I really just
missing the point and all of this is what comes under the umbrella of
integration testing?

Having said all of the above, I am finding Rails RSpec has totally
changed the way I think about coding and designing code... it is
wonderful...

Regards


Mikel



On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I find myself doing the same thing... the, open the model and type in
> > the it shoulds...
> >
> > I ws thinking along the same line... probably all that would be needed
> > is a rake task that hooks into the Mock class and runs all the specs
> > taking not of all the stubs and mocks method calls that are made.
> >
> > Then it could PRODUCE the it shoulds...
> >
> > @model = mock_model(People, :id => 1, :name => "Bob")
> > @model.should_receive(:alive?).and_return(true)
> >
> > # rake spec:find_fakes
> >
> > produces:
> >
> > describe People "automatically" do
> >
> >   it "should have a name"
> >
> >   it "should respond to alive?"
> >
> > end
> >
> > Now... that would be cool....
>
>
> If your examples come after the code, whether they are generated or
> you write them yourself, then you are losing out quite a bit of value
> of the process with which RSpec is aligned.
>
> Secondly, having a name is not behaviour. Using it might be. Or how
> you set it might be. For example:
>
> describe Thing do
>   it "should use the first initializer argument as its name" do
>     Thing.new("Jo?o").name.should == "Jo?o"
>   end
>
>   it "should be alive when first created" do
>     Thing.new.should be_alive
>   end
> end
>
> Implicit in these examples are the fact that Thing has a name and
> responds to "alive?", but those are just artifacts in support of the
> behaviour.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 09:31:50 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:31:50 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
In-Reply-To: <57a815bf0707300619y5dcfdeb1w6c4e0f9a13eb7cc2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707290557k36e2214br54ad890e364cd332@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300229n2942cf55p34a387de8c209e74@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300349gc71c878s837548c50a20896b@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707300443v175f54e6x4f522be457c7c8a3@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300619y5dcfdeb1w6c4e0f9a13eb7cc2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707300631l3cc199b5m4c7e7428b4c63d25@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would tend to disagree. RSpec is a Behaviour Driven Development
> > tool. The idea is that you write a small example of behaviour FIRST,
> > and use that example to drive the implementation. The reason you use
> > examples to drive implementation comes from the idea in Test Driven
> > Development that it will lead to tighter, more focused and more
> > flexible implementations.
> >
> > That all make sense?
>
> Yes, that makes sense.
>
> But I am thinking more of on the side of having the situation where
> you are spec'ing Thing and Thing has to call People or interact with
> people.... tracking those interactions and the interfaces used would
> be something needed...
>
> Because those interfaces are the tool we use to get the behaviour out of People.
>
> In the present (unless I am missing something) the cycle of action
> goes something like:
>
> I spec out the behaviours of a view (say it is the dashboard on 37signals).
>
> This view has a lot of interactions with other Classes.. all over the
> place.  But right _now_ I am doing the view, so I mock out all of the
> other classes and just focus in on the View that I am working on.
>
> Good... all specs pass, the page looks presentable... now what?
>
> Well... go code up the controller responsible for the view.  That's a
> no brainer, for the view's controller....
>
> But then what is the best practice from here for all the other models
> it talks to?
>
> Walk through the view spec line by line finding each mock'd model and
> taking each one and coding the spec and then the code...? (sounds
> awfully unDRY ... as, really, you have already specified a behaviour
> for the model by stubbing or mocking it out....)

That's an interesting perspective, but I'm not sure that I agree with
it. Let's say, for example, that in the view we show one thing if a
model is valid, but another if a model is not valid. Not terribly far
fetched. Have we specified what it means to be valid? Absolutely not!

If anything, what has been specified is a thin picture of an API, just
the method names that should be supported. I don't think that is
behaviour.

>  Surely this is a
> good task for a computer which is good at doing the very repetative
> and manual action of "Go find me all the behaviours specified out for
> this class that other classes need so that they can work".
>
> Assuming you went ahead and cleaned up all those views, what is the
> best way to know you didn't miss a class call?  Or am I really just
> missing the point and all of this is what comes under the umbrella of
> integration testing?

I tend to work in small, complete vertical slices rather than
completing one layer at a time. So rather than doing the whole view
first, I'd do one small aspect of it and then push right down to the
controller action that supports that aspect of it, then push down to
the model, then back up to the next little bit starting from the view.

And yes, this is all much more sane if you're doing integration
testing as well. Automated integration testing, that is - ultimately,
running the app in production IS integration testing - but we'd prefer
to avoid catching the things we missed in that particular framework.

> Having said all of the above, I am finding Rails RSpec has totally
> changed the way I think about coding and designing code... it is
> wonderful...

Glad to hear it.

Cheers,
David

>
> Regards
>
>
> Mikel
>
>
>
> On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I find myself doing the same thing... the, open the model and type in
> > > the it shoulds...
> > >
> > > I ws thinking along the same line... probably all that would be needed
> > > is a rake task that hooks into the Mock class and runs all the specs
> > > taking not of all the stubs and mocks method calls that are made.
> > >
> > > Then it could PRODUCE the it shoulds...
> > >
> > > @model = mock_model(People, :id => 1, :name => "Bob")
> > > @model.should_receive(:alive?).and_return(true)
> > >
> > > # rake spec:find_fakes
> > >
> > > produces:
> > >
> > > describe People "automatically" do
> > >
> > >   it "should have a name"
> > >
> > >   it "should respond to alive?"
> > >
> > > end
> > >
> > > Now... that would be cool....
> >
> >
> > If your examples come after the code, whether they are generated or
> > you write them yourself, then you are losing out quite a bit of value
> > of the process with which RSpec is aligned.
> >
> > Secondly, having a name is not behaviour. Using it might be. Or how
> > you set it might be. For example:
> >
> > describe Thing do
> >   it "should use the first initializer argument as its name" do
> >     Thing.new("Jo?o").name.should == "Jo?o"
> >   end
> >
> >   it "should be alive when first created" do
> >     Thing.new.should be_alive
> >   end
> > end
> >
> > Implicit in these examples are the fact that Thing has a name and
> > responds to "alive?", but those are just artifacts in support of the
> > behaviour.
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From dougcole at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 14:09:28 2007
From: dougcole at gmail.com (Doug Cole)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:09:28 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Stubbing Observers in rails?
Message-ID: <7b8d80330707301109t75d20824i3ac94e44994585cc@mail.gmail.com>

In most of my tests I'd like to be able to stub out the observers for my
models, but I'm not sure the best way to do this.  I doesn't look like there
is a way to stub all instance methods, and I don't seem to be able to stub
early enough to stub out the observer as it's instantiated.  I can think of
several hackish ways to get around it, but I was wondering if anyone could
suggest a good solution?  Thanks!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070730/18dc5925/attachment.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 14:12:52 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:12:52 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Stubbing Observers in rails?
In-Reply-To: <7b8d80330707301109t75d20824i3ac94e44994585cc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7b8d80330707301109t75d20824i3ac94e44994585cc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707301112t57c3390bl31bb38478b15bb57@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/30/07, Doug Cole <dougcole at gmail.com> wrote:
> In most of my tests I'd like to be able to stub out the observers for my
> models, but I'm not sure the best way to do this.  I doesn't look like there
> is a way to stub all instance methods, and I don't seem to be able to stub
> early enough to stub out the observer as it's instantiated.  I can think of
> several hackish ways to get around it, but I was wondering if anyone could
> suggest a good solution?  Thanks!

If you're looking to stub all instances, why not use (what) Rails (calls) mocks?

>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From justnothing at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Jul 30 16:03:20 2007
From: justnothing at tiscali.co.uk (David Green)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] avoiding repitition
Message-ID: <11882919.post@talk.nabble.com>


as my rails application gets bigger, I find I'm writing the same generic
specs for standard CRUD operations. with 8 controllers so far, and more to
come, I'm keen to reduce the duplication. I asked before about generating
specs dynamically in this thread :

http://www.nabble.com/dynamic-specs-tf3927280.html#a11137640

but it doesn't seem possible completely possible. I'm sure this is an issue
for all testing frameworks, not just rspec, so can any of the more seasoned
programmers offer some insight into how they would approach the problem?

thanks
dave

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/avoiding-repitition-tf4178856.html#a11882919
Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


From raasdnil at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 20:30:27 2007
From: raasdnil at gmail.com (Mikel Lindsaar)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:30:27 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707300631l3cc199b5m4c7e7428b4c63d25@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707290557k36e2214br54ad890e364cd332@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>
	<2fff50390707300229n2942cf55p34a387de8c209e74@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300349gc71c878s837548c50a20896b@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707300443v175f54e6x4f522be457c7c8a3@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300619y5dcfdeb1w6c4e0f9a13eb7cc2@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707300631l3cc199b5m4c7e7428b4c63d25@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57a815bf0707301730y640c56d4nd3815cbfe898b53e@mail.gmail.com>

> I tend to work in small, complete vertical slices rather than
> completing one layer at a time. So rather than doing the whole view
> first, I'd do one small aspect of it and then push right down to the
> controller action that supports that aspect of it, then push down to
> the model, then back up to the next little bit starting from the view.

Hmm... great discussion!

The way you are talking sounds, actually, like the right way to do it
in RSpec... vertical slices....

That way you are integrating (somewhat) at the same time as describing
the behaviour of each layer on the way down.

So, really, from one point in the view, you might have four or five
vertical slices described on the way down... and that would tend to
integrate itself somewhat through the process.

Food for thought :)

Regards

Mikel

On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I would tend to disagree. RSpec is a Behaviour Driven Development
> > > tool. The idea is that you write a small example of behaviour FIRST,
> > > and use that example to drive the implementation. The reason you use
> > > examples to drive implementation comes from the idea in Test Driven
> > > Development that it will lead to tighter, more focused and more
> > > flexible implementations.
> > >
> > > That all make sense?
> >
> > Yes, that makes sense.
> >
> > But I am thinking more of on the side of having the situation where
> > you are spec'ing Thing and Thing has to call People or interact with
> > people.... tracking those interactions and the interfaces used would
> > be something needed...
> >
> > Because those interfaces are the tool we use to get the behaviour out of People.
> >
> > In the present (unless I am missing something) the cycle of action
> > goes something like:
> >
> > I spec out the behaviours of a view (say it is the dashboard on 37signals).
> >
> > This view has a lot of interactions with other Classes.. all over the
> > place.  But right _now_ I am doing the view, so I mock out all of the
> > other classes and just focus in on the View that I am working on.
> >
> > Good... all specs pass, the page looks presentable... now what?
> >
> > Well... go code up the controller responsible for the view.  That's a
> > no brainer, for the view's controller....
> >
> > But then what is the best practice from here for all the other models
> > it talks to?
> >
> > Walk through the view spec line by line finding each mock'd model and
> > taking each one and coding the spec and then the code...? (sounds
> > awfully unDRY ... as, really, you have already specified a behaviour
> > for the model by stubbing or mocking it out....)
>
> That's an interesting perspective, but I'm not sure that I agree with
> it. Let's say, for example, that in the view we show one thing if a
> model is valid, but another if a model is not valid. Not terribly far
> fetched. Have we specified what it means to be valid? Absolutely not!
>
> If anything, what has been specified is a thin picture of an API, just
> the method names that should be supported. I don't think that is
> behaviour.
>
> >  Surely this is a
> > good task for a computer which is good at doing the very repetative
> > and manual action of "Go find me all the behaviours specified out for
> > this class that other classes need so that they can work".
> >
> > Assuming you went ahead and cleaned up all those views, what is the
> > best way to know you didn't miss a class call?  Or am I really just
> > missing the point and all of this is what comes under the umbrella of
> > integration testing?
>
> I tend to work in small, complete vertical slices rather than
> completing one layer at a time. So rather than doing the whole view
> first, I'd do one small aspect of it and then push right down to the
> controller action that supports that aspect of it, then push down to
> the model, then back up to the next little bit starting from the view.
>
> And yes, this is all much more sane if you're doing integration
> testing as well. Automated integration testing, that is - ultimately,
> running the app in production IS integration testing - but we'd prefer
> to avoid catching the things we missed in that particular framework.
>
> > Having said all of the above, I am finding Rails RSpec has totally
> > changed the way I think about coding and designing code... it is
> > wonderful...
>
> Glad to hear it.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> > Mikel
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/30/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/30/07, Mikel Lindsaar <raasdnil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I find myself doing the same thing... the, open the model and type in
> > > > the it shoulds...
> > > >
> > > > I ws thinking along the same line... probably all that would be needed
> > > > is a rake task that hooks into the Mock class and runs all the specs
> > > > taking not of all the stubs and mocks method calls that are made.
> > > >
> > > > Then it could PRODUCE the it shoulds...
> > > >
> > > > @model = mock_model(People, :id => 1, :name => "Bob")
> > > > @model.should_receive(:alive?).and_return(true)
> > > >
> > > > # rake spec:find_fakes
> > > >
> > > > produces:
> > > >
> > > > describe People "automatically" do
> > > >
> > > >   it "should have a name"
> > > >
> > > >   it "should respond to alive?"
> > > >
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > > Now... that would be cool....
> > >
> > >
> > > If your examples come after the code, whether they are generated or
> > > you write them yourself, then you are losing out quite a bit of value
> > > of the process with which RSpec is aligned.
> > >
> > > Secondly, having a name is not behaviour. Using it might be. Or how
> > > you set it might be. For example:
> > >
> > > describe Thing do
> > >   it "should use the first initializer argument as its name" do
> > >     Thing.new("Jo?o").name.should == "Jo?o"
> > >   end
> > >
> > >   it "should be alive when first created" do
> > >     Thing.new.should be_alive
> > >   end
> > > end
> > >
> > > Implicit in these examples are the fact that Thing has a name and
> > > responds to "alive?", but those are just artifacts in support of the
> > > behaviour.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From obiefernandez at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 22:48:03 2007
From: obiefernandez at gmail.com (Obie Fernandez)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:48:03 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Any liberally-licensed open source projects out there
	that make good use of RSpec?
Message-ID: <8bf510930707301948r36e2fbb7t7062175829eed85e@mail.gmail.com>

I'm trolling for example RSpec code. Any pointers appreciated.

Cheers,
Obie

From court3nay at gmail.com  Mon Jul 30 23:27:49 2007
From: court3nay at gmail.com (court3nay)
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:27:49 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Any liberally-licensed open source projects out
	there that make good use of RSpec?
In-Reply-To: <8bf510930707301948r36e2fbb7t7062175829eed85e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8bf510930707301948r36e2fbb7t7062175829eed85e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <89BFD999-9504-4053-AE57-EC7EDCE31315@gmail.com>

Caboose Sample app
-------
Courtenay

On Jul 30, 2007, at 7:48 PM, "Obie Fernandez"  
<obiefernandez at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm trolling for example RSpec code. Any pointers appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
> Obie
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From linojon at gmail.com  Tue Jul 31 00:20:03 2007
From: linojon at gmail.com (linojon)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:20:03 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] helper spec not finding rails core helpers
Message-ID: <492C4BBF-9868-44DE-8915-9D0CAAC6F85C@gmail.com>

Hi,

My helper specs were going ok until I added a call to a rails  
DateHelper method in one of my helpers
http://api.rubyonrails.com/classes/ActionView/Helpers/ 
DateHelper.html#M000574

The helper runs fine from my view templates, just dies in the spec test.

I boiled my question down to a simple (not too useful) example. I'm  
not sure what I'm missing.

# application_helper.rb
module ApplicationHelper

   def app_foo
     t = Time.now
     distance_of_time_in_words( t, t + 50.minutes)
     return true
   end
end

# application_helper_spec.rb
require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper'

describe ApplicationHelper do
   it "should find app_foo in application_helpers.rb" do
     app_foo.should be_true
   end
end

# error output
NoMethodError in 'ApplicationHelper should find app_foo in  
application_helpers.rb'
undefined method `distance_of_time_in_words' for [Dynamically  
generated class for RSpec example]:#<Class:0x32d11c8>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jul 31 05:50:33 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 04:50:33 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] helper spec not finding rails core helpers
In-Reply-To: <492C4BBF-9868-44DE-8915-9D0CAAC6F85C@gmail.com>
References: <492C4BBF-9868-44DE-8915-9D0CAAC6F85C@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707310250g29862fe8icd421d9c1e2b1d33@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/30/07, linojon <linojon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My helper specs were going ok until I added a call to a rails
> DateHelper method in one of my helpers
> http://api.rubyonrails.com/classes/ActionView/Helpers/
> DateHelper.html#M000574
>
> The helper runs fine from my view templates, just dies in the spec test.
>
> I boiled my question down to a simple (not too useful) example. I'm
> not sure what I'm missing.
>
> # application_helper.rb
> module ApplicationHelper
>
>    def app_foo
>      t = Time.now
>      distance_of_time_in_words( t, t + 50.minutes)
>      return true
>    end
> end
>
> # application_helper_spec.rb
> require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper'
>
> describe ApplicationHelper do
>    it "should find app_foo in application_helpers.rb" do
>      app_foo.should be_true
>    end
> end
>
> # error output
> NoMethodError in 'ApplicationHelper should find app_foo in
> application_helpers.rb'
> undefined method `distance_of_time_in_words' for [Dynamically
> generated class for RSpec example]:#<Class:0x32d11c8>

Please put bug reports, feature requests, and patches here:

http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?group_id=797

> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jul 31 06:20:28 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 05:20:28 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] helper spec not finding rails core helpers
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707310250g29862fe8icd421d9c1e2b1d33@mail.gmail.com>
References: <492C4BBF-9868-44DE-8915-9D0CAAC6F85C@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707310250g29862fe8icd421d9c1e2b1d33@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707310320m49b51d5dqe57649184cc25299@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/31/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/30/07, linojon <linojon at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > My helper specs were going ok until I added a call to a rails
> > DateHelper method in one of my helpers
> > http://api.rubyonrails.com/classes/ActionView/Helpers/
> > DateHelper.html#M000574
> >
> > The helper runs fine from my view templates, just dies in the spec test.
> >
> > I boiled my question down to a simple (not too useful) example. I'm
> > not sure what I'm missing.
> >
> > # application_helper.rb
> > module ApplicationHelper
> >
> >    def app_foo
> >      t = Time.now
> >      distance_of_time_in_words( t, t + 50.minutes)
> >      return true
> >    end
> > end
> >
> > # application_helper_spec.rb
> > require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper'
> >
> > describe ApplicationHelper do
> >    it "should find app_foo in application_helpers.rb" do
> >      app_foo.should be_true
> >    end
> > end
> >
> > # error output
> > NoMethodError in 'ApplicationHelper should find app_foo in
> > application_helpers.rb'
> > undefined method `distance_of_time_in_words' for [Dynamically
> > generated class for RSpec example]:#<Class:0x32d11c8>
>
> Please put bug reports, feature requests, and patches here:
>
> http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?group_id=797

I went ahead and entered and fixed this:

http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=12714&group_id=797&atid=3149

Please do report bugs to the tracker, however. I am not always able to
jump on things I see on this list.

Cheers,
David

>
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
>

From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Tue Jul 31 10:22:07 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:22:07 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Isolating rails model specs from their
	implementation
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707291445t41675558m5213776a87b0ced9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f8da0f510707291250h707438daua27e204e04ada6f6@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707291321y17a12cf2v64cd4e937d8c38a1@mail.gmail.com>
	<f8da0f510707291409r6c4249ffgb80e79fbaab6bb39@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707291445t41675558m5213776a87b0ced9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B9869A45-36B4-4827-A186-F64A3D73947F@ashleymoran.me.uk>


On 29 Jul 2007, at 22:45, David Chelimsky wrote:

> Changing state between expectations in one example is a TDD no-no. The
> reason is that if "project.should be_active" fails, you might do
> something to fix it and then find that "project.should_not be_active"
> fails.

Glad I spotted this - I think I'm guilty of this one.  I've dumped a  
copy on the RSpec style page on our wiki <http://www.codeweavers.net/ 
wiki/bin/view/RSpecCollab/WebHome> until I get chance to tidy it up

Ashley



From work at ashleymoran.me.uk  Tue Jul 31 11:09:54 2007
From: work at ashleymoran.me.uk (Ashley Moran)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:09:54 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] View-Driven-Development by
	Behavior-Driven-Development and RSpec
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707300410p3c0e6d40rfc4ce352056e214@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C66329A8-2E33-463C-BA91-1E27EEDB3D97@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707290557k36e2214br54ad890e364cd332@mail.gmail.com>
	<57a815bf0707300200r4089f203x56f08e57ee785568@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707300410p3c0e6d40rfc4ce352056e214@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BF3C5D4E-49A6-435E-8025-4C61944AE37C@ashleymoran.me.uk>


On 30 Jul 2007, at 12:10, David Chelimsky wrote:

> I've definitely seen advice to start with models before, but I've not
> seen anything that says "if you're using Test::Unit, you should start
> with models". It's more a development philosophy than a tool issue.

I see this debate come round now and again.  I can see the  
perspective of view-driven development proponents, but I've always  
thought that the models are your, well, model of your problem domain,  
and that you need to understand that before you can create a  
consistent interface.  Maybe this is because most of the work we do  
here is finance-related, and untangling the web of business  
relationships and deals and terms is a nightmare and not something  
you want to keep re-doing.  Perhaps the advice to start with views  
applies more to sites where the view *is* the behaviour (eg a blog)  
rather where the view is more of a presentation layer?

Ashley

From jonathan at parkerhill.com  Tue Jul 31 12:14:56 2007
From: jonathan at parkerhill.com (Jonathan Linowes)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:14:56 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] helper spec not finding rails core helpers
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707310320m49b51d5dqe57649184cc25299@mail.gmail.com>
References: <492C4BBF-9868-44DE-8915-9D0CAAC6F85C@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707310250g29862fe8icd421d9c1e2b1d33@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707310320m49b51d5dqe57649184cc25299@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2CD1D3C8-077D-48BE-A200-E6E65F6E839B@parkerhill.com>

Thanks.
I didnt know it was a bug. I thought I was doing something wrong. :)

linoj

On Jul 31, 2007, at 6:20 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:

> On 7/31/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/30/07, linojon <linojon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> My helper specs were going ok until I added a call to a rails
>>> DateHelper method in one of my helpers
>>> http://api.rubyonrails.com/classes/ActionView/Helpers/
>>> DateHelper.html#M000574
>>>
>>> The helper runs fine from my view templates, just dies in the  
>>> spec test.
>>>
>>> I boiled my question down to a simple (not too useful) example. I'm
>>> not sure what I'm missing.
>>>
>>> # application_helper.rb
>>> module ApplicationHelper
>>>
>>>    def app_foo
>>>      t = Time.now
>>>      distance_of_time_in_words( t, t + 50.minutes)
>>>      return true
>>>    end
>>> end
>>>
>>> # application_helper_spec.rb
>>> require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper'
>>>
>>> describe ApplicationHelper do
>>>    it "should find app_foo in application_helpers.rb" do
>>>      app_foo.should be_true
>>>    end
>>> end
>>>
>>> # error output
>>> NoMethodError in 'ApplicationHelper should find app_foo in
>>> application_helpers.rb'
>>> undefined method `distance_of_time_in_words' for [Dynamically
>>> generated class for RSpec example]:#<Class:0x32d11c8>
>>
>> Please put bug reports, feature requests, and patches here:
>>
>> http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?group_id=797
>
> I went ahead and entered and fixed this:
>
> http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php? 
> func=detail&aid=12714&group_id=797&atid=3149
>
> Please do report bugs to the tracker, however. I am not always able to
> jump on things I see on this list.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From dougcole at gmail.com  Tue Jul 31 13:10:20 2007
From: dougcole at gmail.com (Doug Cole)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:10:20 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Stubbing Observers in rails?
Message-ID: <7b8d80330707311010w78ef5d64uf87b15080c3b215@mail.gmail.com>

If I'm not mistaken those stub them out always - I'd like to be able to stub
them out for most tests, but I would like to have them around when I want to
write tests for the observers themselves!  I imagine this is a fairly common
use case for Observers and testing.

>If you're looking to stub all instances, why not use (what) Rails (calls)
mocks?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070731/8dad3d6a/attachment.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jul 31 14:07:41 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:07:41 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Stubbing Observers in rails?
In-Reply-To: <7b8d80330707311010w78ef5d64uf87b15080c3b215@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7b8d80330707311010w78ef5d64uf87b15080c3b215@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707311107p4a690f90p48562b378c94e41a@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/31/07, Doug Cole <dougcole at gmail.com> wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken those stub them out always - I'd like to be able to stub
> them out for most tests, but I would like to have them around when I want to
> write tests for the observers themselves!  I imagine this is a fairly common
> use case for Observers and testing.

There's an RFE for stubbing all instances:

http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&group_id=797&aid=6791&atid=3152

It's been there for a while. This is very low priority for me, so if
you're interested in seeing it happen your best bet would be to submit
a patch.

Alternatively, I *think* that mocha supports this, so you could use
mocha with RSpec instead of the rspec mock framework.

Cheers,
David

>
>
> >If you're looking to stub all instances, why not use (what) Rails (calls)
> mocks?
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From jonathan at parkerhill.com  Tue Jul 31 15:11:09 2007
From: jonathan at parkerhill.com (Jonathan Linowes)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:11:09 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] upgrading from CURRENT to trunk
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707310320m49b51d5dqe57649184cc25299@mail.gmail.com>
References: <492C4BBF-9868-44DE-8915-9D0CAAC6F85C@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707310250g29862fe8icd421d9c1e2b1d33@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707310320m49b51d5dqe57649184cc25299@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <868AB963-DFA3-4956-893B-7EA23E76BDF6@parkerhill.com>

I've been on CURRENT
I tried to switch to trunk but its not completing.
How do I install the trunk version? (for rails)

(I apologize in advance for being clueless)

Here's my steps:

First, I brought everything I have up to date:
	$ sudo gem update ZenTest
	$ sudo gem update rspec
	$ script/plugin update rspec
	$ script/plugin update rspec_on_rails

and realized I'm on CURRENT, so I then did:

	$ rm -rf vendor/plugins/rspec
	$ rm -rf vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails
	$ script/plugin install svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rspec/trunk  
rspec_trunk
...
Plugin not found: ["svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rspec/trunk",  
"rspec_trunk"]

Unsure about that error, I then tried to build it

	$ cd vendor/plugins/rspec
	$ rake

kept getting errors about missing gems, installed the gems and rake'd  
again until it told me to run:

	$ rake install_dependencies

which does a bunch of stuff and then actually installs rails/1.2.2  
under vendor/plugins/rspec/example_rails_app/vendor/rails/1.2.2/
and then also installs 1.2.3 ... and then also edge... UGH!!
I stopped it before it finished, as i really dont want/need the  
sample app and rails versions



From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jul 31 15:14:31 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:14:31 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] upgrading from CURRENT to trunk
In-Reply-To: <868AB963-DFA3-4956-893B-7EA23E76BDF6@parkerhill.com>
References: <492C4BBF-9868-44DE-8915-9D0CAAC6F85C@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707310250g29862fe8icd421d9c1e2b1d33@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707310320m49b51d5dqe57649184cc25299@mail.gmail.com>
	<868AB963-DFA3-4956-893B-7EA23E76BDF6@parkerhill.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707311214w6212bbb1sbac924bd6e6eb048@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/31/07, Jonathan Linowes <jonathan at parkerhill.com> wrote:
> I've been on CURRENT
> I tried to switch to trunk but its not completing.
> How do I install the trunk version? (for rails)
>
> (I apologize in advance for being clueless)
>
> Here's my steps:
>
> First, I brought everything I have up to date:
>         $ sudo gem update ZenTest
>         $ sudo gem update rspec
>         $ script/plugin update rspec
>         $ script/plugin update rspec_on_rails
>
> and realized I'm on CURRENT, so I then did:
>
>         $ rm -rf vendor/plugins/rspec
>         $ rm -rf vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails
>         $ script/plugin install svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rspec/trunk
> rspec_trunk

Try this:

script/plugin install svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rspec/trunk rspec


> ...
> Plugin not found: ["svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rspec/trunk",
> "rspec_trunk"]
>
> Unsure about that error, I then tried to build it
>
>         $ cd vendor/plugins/rspec
>         $ rake
>
> kept getting errors about missing gems, installed the gems and rake'd
> again until it told me to run:
>
>         $ rake install_dependencies
>
> which does a bunch of stuff and then actually installs rails/1.2.2
> under vendor/plugins/rspec/example_rails_app/vendor/rails/1.2.2/
> and then also installs 1.2.3 ... and then also edge... UGH!!
> I stopped it before it finished, as i really dont want/need the
> sample app and rails versions
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dougcole at gmail.com  Tue Jul 31 15:23:59 2007
From: dougcole at gmail.com (Doug Cole)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:23:59 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] rspec-users Digest, Vol 13, Issue 44
In-Reply-To: <mailman.183.1185909090.22486.rspec-users@rubyforge.org>
References: <mailman.183.1185909090.22486.rspec-users@rubyforge.org>
Message-ID: <7b8d80330707311223m2727a6b3o98beb372e35544eb@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks.  I was hoping someone else who was using observers and rspec
had run into this before and had a solution, as I always prefer the
lazy way when possible ;).  I'll take a look at the rspec code base
and see if I can figure it out well enough to submit a patch.
Doug

>
> On 7/31/07, Doug Cole <dougcole at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If I'm not mistaken those stub them out always - I'd like to be able to stub
> > them out for most tests, but I would like to have them around when I want to
> > write tests for the observers themselves!  I imagine this is a fairly common
> > use case for Observers and testing.
>
> There's an RFE for stubbing all instances:
>
> http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&group_id=797&aid=6791&atid=3152
>
> It's been there for a while. This is very low priority for me, so if
> you're interested in seeing it happen your best bet would be to submit
> a patch.
>
> Alternatively, I *think* that mocha supports this, so you could use
> mocha with RSpec instead of the rspec mock framework.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> >
> >
> > >If you're looking to stub all instances, why not use (what) Rails (calls)
> > mocks?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
>

From mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com  Tue Jul 31 16:05:30 2007
From: mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com (Scott Taylor)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:05:30 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Any liberally-licensed open source projects out
	there that make good use of RSpec?
In-Reply-To: <8bf510930707301948r36e2fbb7t7062175829eed85e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8bf510930707301948r36e2fbb7t7062175829eed85e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9B87F622-9B9F-49B9-9AF8-9B61FDC4B750@railsnewbie.com>


Rails or non-rails related?

Scott


On Jul 30, 2007, at 10:48 PM, Obie Fernandez wrote:

> I'm trolling for example RSpec code. Any pointers appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
> Obie
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From badcarl at gmail.com  Tue Jul 31 16:07:17 2007
From: badcarl at gmail.com (Carl Porth)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:07:17 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Stubbing Observers in rails?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707311107p4a690f90p48562b378c94e41a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7b8d80330707311010w78ef5d64uf87b15080c3b215@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707311107p4a690f90p48562b378c94e41a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2AB02F1D-909E-4405-AB13-2DC797527107@gmail.com>

Mocha has an any_instance method that does this and flexmock has a  
new_instances method that does the same.

I tried patching the rspec mocking framework to do this and got it  
working for new instances, but I couldn't get it working with passing  
arguments to the initialize method.  That and the internals of the  
rspec mocking framework scare the bejeesus out of me.  So I just use  
mocha for mocking and call it a day.

Cheers,
Carl


On Jul 31, 2007, at 11:07 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:

> On 7/31/07, Doug Cole <dougcole at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If I'm not mistaken those stub them out always - I'd like to be  
>> able to stub
>> them out for most tests, but I would like to have them around when  
>> I want to
>> write tests for the observers themselves!  I imagine this is a  
>> fairly common
>> use case for Observers and testing.
>
> There's an RFE for stubbing all instances:
>
> http://rubyforge.org/tracker/? 
> func=detail&group_id=797&aid=6791&atid=3152
>
> It's been there for a while. This is very low priority for me, so if
> you're interested in seeing it happen your best bet would be to submit
> a patch.
>
> Alternatively, I *think* that mocha supports this, so you could use
> mocha with RSpec instead of the rspec mock framework.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>>
>>
>>> If you're looking to stub all instances, why not use (what) Rails  
>>> (calls)
>> mocks?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From robby.lists at planetargon.com  Tue Jul 31 16:24:47 2007
From: robby.lists at planetargon.com (Robby Russell)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:24:47 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] upgrading from CURRENT to trunk
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707311214w6212bbb1sbac924bd6e6eb048@mail.gmail.com>
References: <492C4BBF-9868-44DE-8915-9D0CAAC6F85C@gmail.com>	<57c63afe0707310250g29862fe8icd421d9c1e2b1d33@mail.gmail.com>	<57c63afe0707310320m49b51d5dqe57649184cc25299@mail.gmail.com>	<868AB963-DFA3-4956-893B-7EA23E76BDF6@parkerhill.com>
	<57c63afe0707311214w6212bbb1sbac924bd6e6eb048@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <46AF9A8F.9040004@planetargon.com>

David Chelimsky wrote:
> On 7/31/07, Jonathan Linowes <jonathan at parkerhill.com> wrote:
>> I've been on CURRENT
>> I tried to switch to trunk but its not completing.
>> How do I install the trunk version? (for rails)
>>
>> (I apologize in advance for being clueless)
>>
>> Here's my steps:
>>
>> First, I brought everything I have up to date:
>>         $ sudo gem update ZenTest
>>         $ sudo gem update rspec
>>         $ script/plugin update rspec
>>         $ script/plugin update rspec_on_rails
>>
>> and realized I'm on CURRENT, so I then did:
>>
>>         $ rm -rf vendor/plugins/rspec
>>         $ rm -rf vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails
>>         $ script/plugin install svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rspec/trunk
>> rspec_trunk
> 
> Try this:
> 
> script/plugin install svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rspec/trunk rspec
> 

Might I take this opportunity to encourage you all to consider using 
piston for managing external dependencies within your repository. :-)

http://piston.rubyforge.org/
http://rubyurl.com/qZi (article on using it)

Cheers,
Robby


-- 
Robby Russell
http://www.robbyonrails.com      # my blog
http://www.planetargon.com       # my business
http://www.programmingrails.com  # my book


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jul 31 16:33:38 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:33:38 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] upgrading from CURRENT to trunk
In-Reply-To: <46AF9A8F.9040004@planetargon.com>
References: <492C4BBF-9868-44DE-8915-9D0CAAC6F85C@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707310250g29862fe8icd421d9c1e2b1d33@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707310320m49b51d5dqe57649184cc25299@mail.gmail.com>
	<868AB963-DFA3-4956-893B-7EA23E76BDF6@parkerhill.com>
	<57c63afe0707311214w6212bbb1sbac924bd6e6eb048@mail.gmail.com>
	<46AF9A8F.9040004@planetargon.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707311333l5c71e2e3g64d77a08b336c73c@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/31/07, Robby Russell <robby.lists at planetargon.com> wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
> > On 7/31/07, Jonathan Linowes <jonathan at parkerhill.com> wrote:
> >> I've been on CURRENT
> >> I tried to switch to trunk but its not completing.
> >> How do I install the trunk version? (for rails)
> >>
> >> (I apologize in advance for being clueless)
> >>
> >> Here's my steps:
> >>
> >> First, I brought everything I have up to date:
> >>         $ sudo gem update ZenTest
> >>         $ sudo gem update rspec
> >>         $ script/plugin update rspec
> >>         $ script/plugin update rspec_on_rails
> >>
> >> and realized I'm on CURRENT, so I then did:
> >>
> >>         $ rm -rf vendor/plugins/rspec
> >>         $ rm -rf vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails
> >>         $ script/plugin install svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rspec/trunk
> >> rspec_trunk
> >
> > Try this:
> >
> > script/plugin install svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rspec/trunk rspec
> >
>
> Might I take this opportunity to encourage you all to consider using
> piston for managing external dependencies within your repository. :-)

Hear, hear!

>
> http://piston.rubyforge.org/
> http://rubyurl.com/qZi (article on using it)
>
> Cheers,
> Robby
>
>
> --
> Robby Russell
> http://www.robbyonrails.com      # my blog
> http://www.planetargon.com       # my business
> http://www.programmingrails.com  # my book
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com  Tue Jul 31 16:40:02 2007
From: mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com (Scott Taylor)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:40:02 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Any liberally-licensed open source projects out
	there that make good use of RSpec?
In-Reply-To: <8bf510930707301948r36e2fbb7t7062175829eed85e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8bf510930707301948r36e2fbb7t7062175829eed85e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FE780F16-9527-4A98-9D44-0304EAF42390@railsnewbie.com>


I've just started DatedBackup (an rsnapshot-like utility), which has  
about 500 LOC at the moment.  It is licensed under the GPL, and has  
190 example specs.  If you are interested, download the trunk from  
Rubyforge:

svn checkout svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/datedbackup/trunk/
svn checkout http://datedbackup.rubyforge.org/svn/trunk/

It has a DSL baked in, which I know is up your alley.

Of course, Rspec itself would probably be the model if you needed to  
look at specs.

Best Regards,

Scott

On Jul 30, 2007, at 10:48 PM, Obie Fernandez wrote:

> I'm trolling for example RSpec code. Any pointers appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
> Obie
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com  Tue Jul 31 16:48:41 2007
From: aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com (aslak hellesoy)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:48:41 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Coding standards and whitespace
In-Reply-To: <6CDE2479-54C9-41C9-91EA-C4BE4D23B519@wincent.com>
References: <9989DB21-CFBE-4AC4-B9F4-A46D9A3E0A4A@wincent.com>
	<57c63afe0707271438q54044d4ai5ca5cab2c05f3dbd@mail.gmail.com>
	<6CDE2479-54C9-41C9-91EA-C4BE4D23B519@wincent.com>
Message-ID: <8d961d900707311348y7dcd014frd92fad28f79e5263@mail.gmail.com>

The root Rakefile has a task :fix_cr_lf which I ran a while ago to fix
newlines in .rb files. Perhaps it can be improved to scan over more
files, and replace \t with '  ' too?

I'll see what I can do.

Thoughts?

On 7/29/07, Wincent Colaiuta <win at wincent.com> wrote:
> El 27/7/2007, a las 23:38, David Chelimsky escribi?:
>
> > On 7/26/07, Wincent Colaiuta <win at wincent.com> wrote:
> >> Recently as a result of using Git I've noticed a number of
> >> inconsistencies in the RSpec codebase with respect to whitespace
> >> (mixed line endings, mixed use of spaces and tabs for indentation,
> >> and trailing whitespace at the end of lines). I never would have
> >> noticed, but Git produces nice colorized diff output which highlights
> >> these kinds of inconsistencies.
> >>
> >> I wanted to ask if the core RSpec team had established any
> >> conventions/standards for these things. The basic rationale is that
> >> if all contributors agree to a small number of conventions for
> >> whitespace there are less likely to be changesets with non-
> >> substantive whitespace differences (really, false alarms).
> >
> > Your thinking makes sense, but we haven't set a standard for this. Do
> > you know how to configure TextMate (which most of us use) to take care
> > of this automagically when saving files?
>
> I don't know of any *fully* automatic way to do this in TextMate but
> there are some things you can do to make it nearly automatic. In my
> experience I've observed a few things:
>
> * The initial "clean up" of a code base is the biggest task (although
> for a project the size of RSpec we are still only talking a few
> minutes' work); after that merely maintaining the standards is
> relatively easy (especially in the case of Git where if you do a "git
> diff" to see what you are about to commit any problems with the
> whitespace are immediately evident)
>
> * Project-wide Find and Replace does a pretty good job of handling
> most scenarios; for further "automation" you could record a TextMate
> macro and assign it to a key combo (for example, to handle trailing
> whitespace do a regular expression search for " +$" and replace all
> instances with nothing)
>
> * The way the Git community tends to work is to enforce this using
> repository hooks, and I imagine this could be done in Subversion too:
> the idea is that you have a pre-commit hook that can check the
> proposed commit against the standards and reject it if it fails (Git
> also has a "--no-verify" switch that you can pass if you want to skip
> the pre-commit hook)
>
> * The burden for enforcing the standards need not fall on the
> maintainers themselves; in the projects I've seen it is normal for a
> maintainer to say things like, "the patch looks good but can you fix
> up the whitespace and resubmit?" etc Of course, this is extremely
> easy and natural when using Git because the diff tools really put any
> discrepancies "in your face".
>
> In any case, I think you don't need to go "all the way" with this; a
> useful first step would be merely deciding upon some standards and
> publishing them. Even if you don't take any further steps
> (enforcement, hooks, automation etc) the mere act of publishing the
> standards and asking people to follow them would be useful.
>
> Cheers,
> Wincent
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From win at wincent.com  Tue Jul 31 17:18:51 2007
From: win at wincent.com (Wincent Colaiuta)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:18:51 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Coding standards and whitespace
In-Reply-To: <8d961d900707311348y7dcd014frd92fad28f79e5263@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9989DB21-CFBE-4AC4-B9F4-A46D9A3E0A4A@wincent.com>
	<57c63afe0707271438q54044d4ai5ca5cab2c05f3dbd@mail.gmail.com>
	<6CDE2479-54C9-41C9-91EA-C4BE4D23B519@wincent.com>
	<8d961d900707311348y7dcd014frd92fad28f79e5263@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <61EE1B1A-54C9-4025-AFCD-09ABC121C1E3@wincent.com>

El 31/7/2007, a las 22:48, aslak hellesoy escribi?:

> The root Rakefile has a task :fix_cr_lf which I ran a while ago to fix
> newlines in .rb files. Perhaps it can be improved to scan over more
> files, and replace \t with '  ' too?
>
> I'll see what I can do.
>
> Thoughts?

Sounds like a good idea. I would suggest that \t should be replaced  
with '  ' only if it is in the leading whitespace for a line; if it  
is elsewhere in the line it is probably being (mis)used for alignment  
and it's probably better to just print a warning showing the filename  
and then you'd have to visually inspect it as a straight  
transliteration might not be right (it might be equivalent to one  
space, not two).

I think it's also worth looking for trailing whitespace as it is  
almost always an mistake which apports neither semantic meaning nor  
visual enhancement.

Cheers,
Wincent


From aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com  Tue Jul 31 17:41:19 2007
From: aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com (aslak hellesoy)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:41:19 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Coding standards and whitespace
In-Reply-To: <61EE1B1A-54C9-4025-AFCD-09ABC121C1E3@wincent.com>
References: <9989DB21-CFBE-4AC4-B9F4-A46D9A3E0A4A@wincent.com>
	<57c63afe0707271438q54044d4ai5ca5cab2c05f3dbd@mail.gmail.com>
	<6CDE2479-54C9-41C9-91EA-C4BE4D23B519@wincent.com>
	<8d961d900707311348y7dcd014frd92fad28f79e5263@mail.gmail.com>
	<61EE1B1A-54C9-4025-AFCD-09ABC121C1E3@wincent.com>
Message-ID: <8d961d900707311441k7ec01c4dx70cd4da032ee44@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/31/07, Wincent Colaiuta <win at wincent.com> wrote:
> El 31/7/2007, a las 22:48, aslak hellesoy escribi?:
>
> > The root Rakefile has a task :fix_cr_lf which I ran a while ago to fix
> > newlines in .rb files. Perhaps it can be improved to scan over more
> > files, and replace \t with '  ' too?
> >
> > I'll see what I can do.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Sounds like a good idea. I would suggest that \t should be replaced
> with '  ' only if it is in the leading whitespace for a line; if it
> is elsewhere in the line it is probably being (mis)used for alignment
> and it's probably better to just print a warning showing the filename
> and then you'd have to visually inspect it as a straight
> transliteration might not be right (it might be equivalent to one
> space, not two).
>

Good point

> I think it's also worth looking for trailing whitespace as it is
> almost always an mistake which apports neither semantic meaning nor
> visual enhancement.
>

Trailing whitespace is killed with the strip

Aslak

> Cheers,
> Wincent
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com  Tue Jul 31 22:10:11 2007
From: mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com (Scott Taylor)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:10:11 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Unimplemented Spec idea
Message-ID: <4E3A79FE-117E-446A-83B8-37436C565BD2@railsnewbie.com>


I absolutely love the unimplemented spec idea, and tend to use it a  
lot.  But occasionally it gets in my way, when I rush to write a  
spec, and then want to change it to a non-implemented spec.  My  
normal solution is to comment out the do...end block.  Is there a  
better way?

Stealing an idea from Dan North, how about something like this:

it "should do such and such", :pending => true do
    # unimplemented spec goes here
end

To make the spec run, simply remove the :pending key.  I'm sure this  
would be rather trivial to implement as well.

Thoughts?

Scott


From has.sox at gmail.com  Tue Jul 31 22:13:47 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:13:47 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Unimplemented Spec idea
In-Reply-To: <4E3A79FE-117E-446A-83B8-37436C565BD2@railsnewbie.com>
References: <4E3A79FE-117E-446A-83B8-37436C565BD2@railsnewbie.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707311913i46083787k6ede3ee3fabd1f67@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/1/07, Scott Taylor <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>
>
> I absolutely love the unimplemented spec idea, and tend to use it a
> lot.  But occasionally it gets in my way, when I rush to write a
> spec, and then want to change it to a non-implemented spec.  My
> normal solution is to comment out the do...end block.  Is there a
> better way?
>
> Stealing an idea from Dan North, how about something like this:
>
> it "should do such and such", :pending => true do
>     # unimplemented spec goes here
> end
>
> To make the spec run, simply remove the :pending key.  I'm sure this
> would be rather trivial to implement as well.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Scott



This is already included.  At least it is in edge. You call the pending(
"some reason" ) method at the top of your example to do this.

it "should do stuff" do
  pending( "Don't run this yet" )
  # specs go here for unimplemented feature
end

HTH
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070801/78bed70f/attachment.html 

From jonathan at parkerhill.com  Tue Jul 31 22:24:41 2007
From: jonathan at parkerhill.com (Jonathan Linowes)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:24:41 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] helper spec not finding rails core helpers
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707310320m49b51d5dqe57649184cc25299@mail.gmail.com>
References: <492C4BBF-9868-44DE-8915-9D0CAAC6F85C@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707310250g29862fe8icd421d9c1e2b1d33@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707310320m49b51d5dqe57649184cc25299@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AAAF93B7-357F-4FE5-9E6E-84CBC806016D@parkerhill.com>

I'm having trouble logging into RubyForge (might be my firewall, both  
firefox and safari are not taking its cookie).

I wanted to add this comment to
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php? 
func=detail&aid=12714&group_id=797&atid=3149

------------

The pagination helper has been removed from rails edge. To avoid a  
runtime error I commented out line 33 in rspec_on_rails/lib/rails/dsl/ 
behavior/helper.rb

     # include ActionView::Helpers::PaginationHelper



On Jul 31, 2007, at 6:20 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:

> On 7/31/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/30/07, linojon <linojon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> My helper specs were going ok until I added a call to a rails
>>> DateHelper method in one of my helpers
>>> http://api.rubyonrails.com/classes/ActionView/Helpers/
>>> DateHelper.html#M000574
>>>
>>> The helper runs fine from my view templates, just dies in the  
>>> spec test.
>>>
>>> I boiled my question down to a simple (not too useful) example. I'm
>>> not sure what I'm missing.
>>>
>>> # application_helper.rb
>>> module ApplicationHelper
>>>
>>>    def app_foo
>>>      t = Time.now
>>>      distance_of_time_in_words( t, t + 50.minutes)
>>>      return true
>>>    end
>>> end
>>>
>>> # application_helper_spec.rb
>>> require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper'
>>>
>>> describe ApplicationHelper do
>>>    it "should find app_foo in application_helpers.rb" do
>>>      app_foo.should be_true
>>>    end
>>> end
>>>
>>> # error output
>>> NoMethodError in 'ApplicationHelper should find app_foo in
>>> application_helpers.rb'
>>> undefined method `distance_of_time_in_words' for [Dynamically
>>> generated class for RSpec example]:#<Class:0x32d11c8>
>>
>> Please put bug reports, feature requests, and patches here:
>>
>> http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?group_id=797
>
> I went ahead and entered and fixed this:
>
> http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php? 
> func=detail&aid=12714&group_id=797&atid=3149
>
> Please do report bugs to the tracker, however. I am not always able to
> jump on things I see on this list.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jul 31 22:28:58 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:28:58 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Unimplemented Spec idea
In-Reply-To: <2fff50390707311913i46083787k6ede3ee3fabd1f67@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E3A79FE-117E-446A-83B8-37436C565BD2@railsnewbie.com>
	<2fff50390707311913i46083787k6ede3ee3fabd1f67@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707311928q7c578077n408de3fbb991a6bc@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/31/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 8/1/07, Scott Taylor <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
> >
> > I absolutely love the unimplemented spec idea, and tend to use it a
> > lot.  But occasionally it gets in my way, when I rush to write a
> > spec, and then want to change it to a non-implemented spec.  My
> > normal solution is to comment out the do...end block.  Is there a
> > better way?
> >
> > Stealing an idea from Dan North, how about something like this:
> >
> > it "should do such and such", :pending => true do
> >     # unimplemented spec goes here
> > end
> >
> > To make the spec run, simply remove the :pending key.  I'm sure this
> > would be rather trivial to implement as well.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Scott
>
>
>  This is already included.  At least it is in edge. You call the pending(
> "some reason" ) method at the top of your example to do this.
>
>  it "should do stuff" do
>    pending( "Don't run this yet" )
>    # specs go here for unimplemented feature
>  end

You can also do this:

it "should not do this buggy thing" do
  pending "awaiting bug fix" do
    # buggy code
  end
end

When the code in the block fails, the example shows up as pending.
When it passes, it shows up as a failure, saying that the failure was
expected but it passed instead.

>
>  HTH
>  Daniel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From jonathan at parkerhill.com  Tue Jul 31 22:48:11 2007
From: jonathan at parkerhill.com (Jonathan Linowes)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:48:11 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] installing trunk (was: upgrading from CURRENT to
	trunk)
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707311214w6212bbb1sbac924bd6e6eb048@mail.gmail.com>
References: <492C4BBF-9868-44DE-8915-9D0CAAC6F85C@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707310250g29862fe8icd421d9c1e2b1d33@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707310320m49b51d5dqe57649184cc25299@mail.gmail.com>
	<868AB963-DFA3-4956-893B-7EA23E76BDF6@parkerhill.com>
	<57c63afe0707311214w6212bbb1sbac924bd6e6eb048@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2DD2A0E0-D532-4080-82DF-DF360EBA56C5@parkerhill.com>


Hi, I must be missing something obvious.

	$ rm -rf vendor/plugins/rspec

	$ script/plugin install svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rspec/trunk rspec
Exported revision 2188.
Plugin not found: ["svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rspec/trunk", "rspec"]

	$ ls vendor/plugins
rspec/                  (etc)

	$ ls vendor/plugins/rspec
README                  Rakefile                 
example_rails_app/      rspec/                  spec_distributed/
RSpec.tmbundle/         doc/                     
pre_commit/             rspec_on_rails/         spec_ui/


but if i manually shuffle things around, then i'm ok:

	$ mv vendor/plugins/rspec ~/
	$ mv ~/rspec/rspec vendor/plugins/
	$ mv ~/rspec/rspec_on_rails vendor/plugins/

this works

Probably a script or svn thing I'm doing wrong?

From has.sox at gmail.com  Tue Jul 31 23:04:27 2007
From: has.sox at gmail.com (Daniel N)
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 13:04:27 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] Unimplemented Spec idea
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707311928q7c578077n408de3fbb991a6bc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E3A79FE-117E-446A-83B8-37436C565BD2@railsnewbie.com>
	<2fff50390707311913i46083787k6ede3ee3fabd1f67@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707311928q7c578077n408de3fbb991a6bc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2fff50390707312004k6daa6ba2jc92180653c04a427@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/1/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/31/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 8/1/07, Scott Taylor <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I absolutely love the unimplemented spec idea, and tend to use it a
> > > lot.  But occasionally it gets in my way, when I rush to write a
> > > spec, and then want to change it to a non-implemented spec.  My
> > > normal solution is to comment out the do...end block.  Is there a
> > > better way?
> > >
> > > Stealing an idea from Dan North, how about something like this:
> > >
> > > it "should do such and such", :pending => true do
> > >     # unimplemented spec goes here
> > > end
> > >
> > > To make the spec run, simply remove the :pending key.  I'm sure this
> > > would be rather trivial to implement as well.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Scott
> >
> >
> >  This is already included.  At least it is in edge. You call the
> pending(
> > "some reason" ) method at the top of your example to do this.
> >
> >  it "should do stuff" do
> >    pending( "Don't run this yet" )
> >    # specs go here for unimplemented feature
> >  end
>
> You can also do this:
>
> it "should not do this buggy thing" do
>   pending "awaiting bug fix" do
>     # buggy code
>   end
> end
>
> When the code in the block fails, the example shows up as pending.
> When it passes, it shows up as a failure, saying that the failure was
> expected but it passed instead.


That's good to know :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070801/7d26b20c/attachment.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jul 31 23:15:13 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:15:13 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] installing trunk (was: upgrading from CURRENT to
	trunk)
In-Reply-To: <2DD2A0E0-D532-4080-82DF-DF360EBA56C5@parkerhill.com>
References: <492C4BBF-9868-44DE-8915-9D0CAAC6F85C@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707310250g29862fe8icd421d9c1e2b1d33@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707310320m49b51d5dqe57649184cc25299@mail.gmail.com>
	<868AB963-DFA3-4956-893B-7EA23E76BDF6@parkerhill.com>
	<57c63afe0707311214w6212bbb1sbac924bd6e6eb048@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DD2A0E0-D532-4080-82DF-DF360EBA56C5@parkerhill.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0707312015m7d263affwde57c5fd13de4c1b@mail.gmail.com>

On 7/31/07, Jonathan Linowes <jonathan at parkerhill.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, I must be missing something obvious.
>
>         $ rm -rf vendor/plugins/rspec
>
>         $ script/plugin install svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rspec/trunk rspec
> Exported revision 2188.
> Plugin not found: ["svn://rubyforge.org/var/svn/rspec/trunk", "rspec"]
>
>         $ ls vendor/plugins
> rspec/                  (etc)
>
>         $ ls vendor/plugins/rspec
> README                  Rakefile
> example_rails_app/      rspec/                  spec_distributed/
> RSpec.tmbundle/         doc/
> pre_commit/             rspec_on_rails/         spec_ui/
>
>
> but if i manually shuffle things around, then i'm ok:
>
>         $ mv vendor/plugins/rspec ~/
>         $ mv ~/rspec/rspec vendor/plugins/
>         $ mv ~/rspec/rspec_on_rails vendor/plugins/
>
> this works
>
> Probably a script or svn thing I'm doing wrong?

Sorry - I typed it wrong. See
http://rspec.rubyforge.org/documentation/rails/install.html.
Instructions for trunk are further down the page.

David

> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From jonathan at parkerhill.com  Tue Jul 31 23:33:51 2007
From: jonathan at parkerhill.com (Jonathan Linowes)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:33:51 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] installing trunk (was: upgrading from CURRENT to
	trunk)
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0707312015m7d263affwde57c5fd13de4c1b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <492C4BBF-9868-44DE-8915-9D0CAAC6F85C@gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707310250g29862fe8icd421d9c1e2b1d33@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0707310320m49b51d5dqe57649184cc25299@mail.gmail.com>
	<868AB963-DFA3-4956-893B-7EA23E76BDF6@parkerhill.com>
	<57c63afe0707311214w6212bbb1sbac924bd6e6eb048@mail.gmail.com>
	<2DD2A0E0-D532-4080-82DF-DF360EBA56C5@parkerhill.com>
	<57c63afe0707312015m7d263affwde57c5fd13de4c1b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1F263445-5567-42C1-A53A-55EF2F7A5866@parkerhill.com>

dang, I was looking at "Home >> Install"
http://rspec.rubyforge.org/download.html
and obviously missed that link

Thank you and sorry to be a bother


On Jul 31, 2007, at 11:15 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:

>
> Sorry - I typed it wrong. See
> http://rspec.rubyforge.org/documentation/rails/install.html.
> Instructions for trunk are further down the page.
>
> David
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users