From pat.maddox at gmail.com  Wed Jul  1 03:49:19 2009
From: pat.maddox at gmail.com (Pat Maddox)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 00:49:19 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Integrate or isolate views?
In-Reply-To: <c97aaf3f7eda7ffd41d2f28fac172bbd@ruby-forum.com>
References: <c97aaf3f7eda7ffd41d2f28fac172bbd@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <2c7e61990907010049s1ce2b64cq6c90c6c1bb46c7ea@mail.gmail.com>

If your controllers are fat, test in isolation.  For skinny
controllers I will sometimes forgo controller specs altogether and
implicitly verify the integration through cucumber features.
Sometimes there's something funky that makes the cucumber failure
output difficult to interpret, and controller specs can make it easy
to pinpoint.

Pat

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Jesse Crockett<lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been trying for two years to pick up BDD. ?I'm making progress,
> have just read through the chapters in The RSpec Book on spec'ing views
> and controllers.
>
> What is the difference between using integrate_views and doing what
> seems to be a lot of extra work to test the views in isolation?
>
> When I use integrate_views, can I write view spec in what would
> otherwise be isolated controller spec?
>
> I read that I'm "encouraged" to do these in isolation, but IMHO the
> chapter on spec'ing views is not very convincing in its own right, it
> tells me that it's good, but doesn't show me as much, compared to the
> examples and descriptions of circumstance that make several other
> chapters very convincing.
>
> Please help. ?thanks
>
> Jesse
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Wed Jul  1 04:18:55 2009
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Ignacy Moryc)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:18:55 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] [Rails] Controller testing problem
Message-ID: <96354295919f15271ea31829c858a559@ruby-forum.com>

Hi,

I'm working on a legacy app - it was created in 1.2.5 then over time
ported to 2.3. It has absolutely no tests - and I'm trying to fix that
in between adding new functionality.

My problem right now is that my ApplicationController is running
before_filters for setting different request variables (like current
location, etc.) and this messes up my tests - I can't test responses
properly (they are all redirects because ApplicationController derives
from SiteController which actions implement setting variables). What's
worse I can't test assigns hash - it doesn't get proper values assigned.

Is there a way for RSpec to skip the filters in tests? Or to stop
ApplicationController to derive from SiteController?

Thanks,
Ignacy
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Wed Jul  1 07:48:08 2009
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Fernando Perez)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 13:48:08 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] [Rails] Controller testing problem
In-Reply-To: <96354295919f15271ea31829c858a559@ruby-forum.com>
References: <96354295919f15271ea31829c858a559@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <09aeeb4ad35c4ca42879cc7dea03d866@ruby-forum.com>

> Is there a way for RSpec to skip the filters in tests? Or to stop
> ApplicationController to derive from SiteController?
That's a perfect use case for mocks and/or stubs.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Wed Jul  1 08:43:57 2009
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Kga Agk)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 14:43:57 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Selenium, Rspec in ruby. Start selenium server in code
Message-ID: <7964a4684d41af36546cbe903bcfad2c@ruby-forum.com>

I got it to work in ruby, but I have to start the selenium servver
manualy before I runn the program. That is unesesary mutch work and
complicated. Is there a way to start the selenium server inside the code
and stop it at the end?


Here is a code example i got to work... it is a bit messy



    require 'rubygems'
gem 'thoughtbot-shoulda'
require 'shoulda'


require 'spec'
require 'spec/story'

require 'test/unit'
    require "rubygems"
    gem "selenium-client", ">=1.2.15"
    require "selenium/client"
    require "selenium"


    describe "test" do

      before :all do
        @browser = Selenium::Client::Driver.new \
          :host => "localhost",
          :port => 4444,
          :browser => "*firefox",
          :url => "http://www.google.com",
          :timeout_in_second => 60
      end
      after :all do
        @browser.close_current_browser_session
      end


      it "test1" do
        @browser.start_new_browser_session
        @browser.open "/"
        @browser.type "q", "Selenium seleniumhq.org"
        @browser.click "btnG", :wait_for => :page
        assert @browser.text?("seleniumhq.org")
      end
    end




What do I need to add to get it to start the selenium server automaticly
and stop it at the end?
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From matt at mattwynne.net  Wed Jul  1 12:55:17 2009
From: matt at mattwynne.net (Matt Wynne)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 17:55:17 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] [Rails] Controller testing problem
In-Reply-To: <09aeeb4ad35c4ca42879cc7dea03d866@ruby-forum.com>
References: <96354295919f15271ea31829c858a559@ruby-forum.com>
	<09aeeb4ad35c4ca42879cc7dea03d866@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <63FE445E-5240-4F13-9176-33470E093859@mattwynne.net>


On 1 Jul 2009, at 12:48, Fernando Perez wrote:

>> Is there a way for RSpec to skip the filters in tests? Or to stop
>> ApplicationController to derive from SiteController?
> That's a perfect use case for mocks and/or stubs.

Indeed. Another way to do this is to test a special subclass of  
SiteController, which overrides those methods that are called by the  
before_filters and makes them do what you want for the test (i.e.  
probably very little).

See Michael Feathers' excellent book 'Working Effectively with Legacy  
Code' for more inspiration and ideas in wrestling with a codebase that  
has no existing tests.

cheers,
Matt Wynne

http://mattwynne.net
+447974 430184


From pat.maddox at gmail.com  Wed Jul  1 13:10:46 2009
From: pat.maddox at gmail.com (Pat Maddox)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:10:46 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Integrate or isolate views?
In-Reply-To: <2F96CC14-B30F-48A4-9899-E75E14DB114C@ultrasaurus.com>
References: <c97aaf3f7eda7ffd41d2f28fac172bbd@ruby-forum.com>
	<03369D62-AD08-4922-8D43-8289506E9AAC@benmabey.com>
	<2F96CC14-B30F-48A4-9899-E75E14DB114C@ultrasaurus.com>
Message-ID: <2c7e61990907011010r3e5b6a6fy72ec268143d671fb@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Sarah Allen<sarah at ultrasaurus.com> wrote:
> I find that testing views independently is useful just to catch HTML errors
> that can sometime creep in during a re-factor. ?These check important
> details that would be more tedious using cucumber

+1

Pat

From zach.dennis at gmail.com  Wed Jul  1 13:14:37 2009
From: zach.dennis at gmail.com (Zach Dennis)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 13:14:37 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Integrate or isolate views?
In-Reply-To: <2c7e61990907011010r3e5b6a6fy72ec268143d671fb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c97aaf3f7eda7ffd41d2f28fac172bbd@ruby-forum.com>
	<03369D62-AD08-4922-8D43-8289506E9AAC@benmabey.com>
	<2F96CC14-B30F-48A4-9899-E75E14DB114C@ultrasaurus.com>
	<2c7e61990907011010r3e5b6a6fy72ec268143d671fb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <85d99afe0907011014gd1bc5bcp4f1bb588479544f@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Pat Maddox<pat.maddox at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Sarah Allen<sarah at ultrasaurus.com> wrote:
>> I find that testing views independently is useful just to catch HTML errors
>> that can sometime creep in during a re-factor. ?These check important
>> details that would be more tedious using cucumber
>
> +1

+1 as well. The last sentence here really nails it on the head for me,

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



-- 
Zach Dennis
http://www.continuousthinking.com (personal)
http://www.mutuallyhuman.com (hire me)
http://ideafoundry.info/behavior-driven-development (first rate BDD training)
@zachdennis (twitter)

From zach.dennis at gmail.com  Wed Jul  1 13:14:11 2009
From: zach.dennis at gmail.com (Zach Dennis)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 13:14:11 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Integrate or isolate views?
In-Reply-To: <c97aaf3f7eda7ffd41d2f28fac172bbd@ruby-forum.com>
References: <c97aaf3f7eda7ffd41d2f28fac172bbd@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <85d99afe0907011014x76af08e3t7e1cfb06ae011f32@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Jesse Crockett<lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been trying for two years to pick up BDD. ?I'm making progress,
> have just read through the chapters in The RSpec Book on spec'ing views
> and controllers.
>
> What is the difference between using integrate_views and doing what
> seems to be a lot of extra work to test the views in isolation?
>
> When I use integrate_views, can I write view spec in what would
> otherwise be isolated controller spec?

Yes you can do this. Personally, I find it a benefit in discovery,
maintenance, and readability to have simple and focused focused view
and controller specs rather than a controller spec trying to do it
all. There is less of a barrier when writing an isolated view spec
then there is when writing a integrated controller spec.

>
> I read that I'm "encouraged" to do these in isolation, but IMHO the
> chapter on spec'ing views is not very convincing in its own right, it
> tells me that it's good, but doesn't show me as much, compared to the
> examples and descriptions of circumstance that make several other
> chapters very convincing.

Cucumber does a great job of providing a way to drive a lot of what's
in your views (especially forms). There are many times when Cucumber
is sufficient. However, there are plenty of times where your views
have details or a some view logic where it may not be covered with
your Cucumber scenarios or it may not be clear. In these cases a very
simple view spec can be a quick and effective way to drive your views.

In my opinion if view specs are hard to write and difficult to
maintain you're doing it wrong, either in what you're spec'ing or what
you're trying to implement. Writing view specs quickly and effectively
requires that you get into a groove for writing simple views that
drive methods into existence on other objects. Of course, finding that
groove may mean rethinking how you're writing views, and understanding
and knowing what rspec and webrat gives you. And this is one of the
major goals of the Rails Views chapter. To get you comfortable with
how to drive a view spec and understanding what the tools provide for
you. It does provides some insight into the what/when/why, but that's
not its major focus at this time, more of the focus is the how.

Based on my experience driving things from the views on down led to
more robust code. Even though it's a simple practice, I spent less
time revisiting controllers and models because the views defined what
was required before I even got there. It also forced me to think
outside the box and recognize the value of presenters. Presenters are
one thing not covered in the book, and I'm not sure how widespread
they are, but I for one find them simple and powerful tool in my
toolbox. If you're interested here's a link:
http://wiki.github.com/mhs/caching_presenter

Thank you for sharing your frustration about this. It seems to have
spurred a lot of good input, and hopefully the Rails Views chapter
will be able to be updated to tackle some of the challenges you found
as a reader,



>
> Please help. ?thanks
>
> Jesse
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>



-- 
Zach Dennis
http://www.continuousthinking.com (personal)
http://www.mutuallyhuman.com (hire me)
http://ideafoundry.info/behavior-driven-development (first rate BDD training)
@zachdennis (twitter)

From matt at mattwynne.net  Wed Jul  1 13:54:09 2009
From: matt at mattwynne.net (Matt Wynne)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 18:54:09 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Integrate or isolate views?
In-Reply-To: <85d99afe0907011014gd1bc5bcp4f1bb588479544f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c97aaf3f7eda7ffd41d2f28fac172bbd@ruby-forum.com>
	<03369D62-AD08-4922-8D43-8289506E9AAC@benmabey.com>
	<2F96CC14-B30F-48A4-9899-E75E14DB114C@ultrasaurus.com>
	<2c7e61990907011010r3e5b6a6fy72ec268143d671fb@mail.gmail.com>
	<85d99afe0907011014gd1bc5bcp4f1bb588479544f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7D8F7462-8AB1-4A99-92B9-DD4543F99FD0@mattwynne.net>


On 1 Jul 2009, at 18:14, Zach Dennis wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Pat Maddox<pat.maddox at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Sarah  
>> Allen<sarah at ultrasaurus.com> wrote:
>>> I find that testing views independently is useful just to catch  
>>> HTML errors
>>> that can sometime creep in during a re-factor.  These check  
>>> important
>>> details that would be more tedious using cucumber
>>
>> +1
>
> +1 as well. The last sentence here really nails it on the head for me,

It's surprising what a wise guide an aversion to boredom can be.

cheers,
Matt Wynne

http://mattwynne.net
+447974 430184


From timcharper at gmail.com  Wed Jul  1 14:57:18 2009
From: timcharper at gmail.com (Tim Harper)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 12:57:18 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] any idea why spec_server gets 'cannot remove
	Object' error?
In-Reply-To: <e4667a8d14cbbd6652bc46e9ae7dba01@ruby-forum.com>
References: <7df13a180210246a40d87100c25a9e7d@ruby-forum.com> 
	<57c63afe0906230719t211872abm67200c5aa1d22d5c@mail.gmail.com> 
	<d7694cfb7b42f4940e9bec73b1b4e1b7@ruby-forum.com>
	<e1a5e9a00906241606nca0db09y17248c1b1d40289a@mail.gmail.com> 
	<e4667a8d14cbbd6652bc46e9ae7dba01@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <e1a5e9a00907011157m840041aqdc0fea96f5d9ce62@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:03 AM, Tom Hoen<lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:
> I tried to vote a +1, but get this after clicking the Comment button:
>
> ? There was a problem serving the requested page.
>
> ? Now you're wondering, "what can I do about it!?!". Well...

That's lame. votes have been coming in on other issues, so I guess
that makes you and / or your timing, special :)

>
> Have you heard of anyone that has rspec/spork/cucumber etc running under
> cygwin, colinux, andLinux, or Ulteo Virtual Desktop. Do any of them
> allow for fork?

yes, yes, yes, don't know

cygwin is slow, I would avoid it.  andLinux is a ubuntu-KDE
distribution that uses colinux.  I use andLinux at home, and it's
simply awesome.

Tim

From ed.ruder at gmail.com  Sat Jul  4 17:40:52 2009
From: ed.ruder at gmail.com (Ed Ruder)
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 14:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] Routes helpers work differently from helper examples
	compared to page rendering
Message-ID: <358a910b-edea-4dce-a745-26a474f31647@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>

I have a helper that calls a Rails route _url method. In the context
of a helper spec file, the route helper method ends up calling url_for
in rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/base.rb. In the context of
rendering a page, the route helper method calls url_for in rails/
actionpack/lib/action_view/helpers/url_helper.rb. Though very similar,
they can return different results, as I found out.

Specifically, ActionController::Base#url_for doesn't do html escaping--
ActionView::Helpers::UrlHelper#url_for does, and has an additional
parameter, :escape => true|false, to controller whether or not the
escaping is done.

This took some frustrating time to track down.

Since the code path executed by helper examples is not the same as
production, tests can produce invalid results. Also, some behavior
cannot be tested, since the code generating the results is not being
executed.

Is this a bug in RSpec, or is there a "correct" way to test helpers
that I'm missing?

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sat Jul  4 18:53:58 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 17:53:58 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Routes helpers work differently from helper
	examples compared to page rendering
In-Reply-To: <358a910b-edea-4dce-a745-26a474f31647@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
References: <358a910b-edea-4dce-a745-26a474f31647@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907041553s223a0c21o5023428dc29392d8@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ed Ruder<ed.ruder at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a helper that calls a Rails route _url method. In the context
> of a helper spec file, the route helper method ends up calling url_for
> in rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/base.rb. In the context of
> rendering a page, the route helper method calls url_for in rails/
> actionpack/lib/action_view/helpers/url_helper.rb. Though very similar,
> they can return different results, as I found out.
>
> Specifically, ActionController::Base#url_for doesn't do html escaping--
> ActionView::Helpers::UrlHelper#url_for does, and has an additional
> parameter, :escape => true|false, to controller whether or not the
> escaping is done.
>
> This took some frustrating time to track down.
>
> Since the code path executed by helper examples is not the same as
> production, tests can produce invalid results. Also, some behavior
> cannot be tested, since the code generating the results is not being
> executed.
>
> Is this a bug in RSpec, or is there a "correct" way to test helpers
> that I'm missing?

Not sure if this is directly related, but you may be interested in
this ticket: https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/843

From evgeny.bogdanov at gmail.com  Mon Jul  6 08:05:05 2009
From: evgeny.bogdanov at gmail.com (Evgeny Bogdanov)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 05:05:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] [rspec][webrat] Bug? in have_tag for <a href="name">
Message-ID: <e2f37441-bddf-4e14-93f4-f9d39f46a03a@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>

Hello,

I am writing a spec for the following html code:
<a href="/home">Home</a>
<a href="/logout">Logout</a>

and I use webrat have_tag for specying it:
response.body.should have_tag('a', :href => "/home", :content =>
"Home")
response.body.should have_tag('a', :href => "/logout", :content =>
"Logout")

If I put :href to be "/home2" or :content to be "Home1" the spec still
passes,
though it shouldn't as I understand.

Does somebody know what I am doing wrong?
Thank you in advance,
Evgeny


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul  6 08:27:38 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 07:27:38 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] [rspec][webrat] Bug? in have_tag for <a
	href="name">
In-Reply-To: <e2f37441-bddf-4e14-93f4-f9d39f46a03a@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
References: <e2f37441-bddf-4e14-93f4-f9d39f46a03a@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907060527l32e5eb00y13e56f296fe4c59a@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Evgeny
Bogdanov<evgeny.bogdanov at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am writing a spec for the following html code:
> <a href="/home">Home</a>
> <a href="/logout">Logout</a>
>
> and I use webrat have_tag for specying it:
> response.body.should have_tag('a', :href => "/home", :content =>
> "Home")
> response.body.should have_tag('a', :href => "/logout", :content =>
> "Logout")
>
> If I put :href to be "/home2" or :content to be "Home1" the spec still
> passes,
> though it shouldn't as I understand.
>
> Does somebody know what I am doing wrong?

Try have_selector instead. I think that have_tag doesn't pay attention
to the hash args (:href => etc).


> Thank you in advance,
> Evgeny
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From chris at silhouettesolutions.net  Mon Jul  6 13:51:33 2009
From: chris at silhouettesolutions.net (Chris Sund)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] Rspec book issue (mastermind example)
Message-ID: <a442ee53-b97d-4d2e-865b-78094ff33436@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>

Hey Everyone,

Just a simple question. I have read and re-read the examples and I'm
not getting the proper output.  I'm on page 73/74 of the Rspec book
and it says I should have "4 steps passed". I think the problem is
within my /step_definition/mastermind.rb" file. It's definitely not
beyond me to make a mistake, but I have checked and double checked my
code and it all looks fine via the book examples. Here's the output
I'm getting...

______________________________________________________

cucumber features
Feature: code-breaker starts game

As a code-breaker
I want to start a game
So that I can break the code

  Scenario: start game                                # features/
codebreaker_starts_game.feature:7
    Given I am not yet playing                        # features/
step_definitions/mastermind.rb:3
    When I start a new game                           # features/
step_definitions/mastermind.rb:7
    Then the game should say "Welcome to Mastermind!" # features/
codebreaker_starts_game.feature:10
    And the game should say "Enter guess:"            # features/
codebreaker_starts_game.feature:11

1 scenario (1 undefined)
4 steps (2 undefined, 2 passed)
0m0.003s

You can implement step definitions for undefined steps with these
snippets:

Then /^the game should say "([^\"]*)"$/ do |arg1|
  pending
end

_______________________________________________

It seems it doesn't think my "Then" statement is defined, but it is.
My /step_definitions/mastermind.rb file looks like this...

Given /^I am not yet playing$/ do
end


When /^I start a new game$/ do
@messenger = StringIO.new
game = Mastermind::Game.new(@messenger)
game.start
end

Then /^the game should say "(.*)" $/ do |message|
@messenger.string.split("\n" ).should include(message)
end

__________________________________________

It's either a problem with the syntax in the "Then" statement, or my
"message" variable isn't getting defined right. Any help would be
appreciated, and I can provide my other files, but I'm a newbie and
I'm not sure what files would be worth looking at. Let me know and
I'll post them.

Thanks!

Chris

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul  6 14:01:04 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 13:01:04 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Rspec book issue (mastermind example)
In-Reply-To: <a442ee53-b97d-4d2e-865b-78094ff33436@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
References: <a442ee53-b97d-4d2e-865b-78094ff33436@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907061101m3a674a98i5280be20be720038@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Chris
Sund<chris at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
> Hey Everyone,
>
> Just a simple question. I have read and re-read the examples and I'm
> not getting the proper output. ?I'm on page 73/74 of the Rspec book
> and it says I should have "4 steps passed". I think the problem is
> within my /step_definition/mastermind.rb" file. It's definitely not
> beyond me to make a mistake, but I have checked and double checked my
> code and it all looks fine via the book examples. Here's the output
> I'm getting...
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
> cucumber features
> Feature: code-breaker starts game
>
> As a code-breaker
> I want to start a game
> So that I can break the code
>
> ?Scenario: start game ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?# features/
> codebreaker_starts_game.feature:7
> ? ?Given I am not yet playing ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?# features/
> step_definitions/mastermind.rb:3
> ? ?When I start a new game ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? # features/
> step_definitions/mastermind.rb:7
> ? ?Then the game should say "Welcome to Mastermind!" # features/
> codebreaker_starts_game.feature:10
> ? ?And the game should say "Enter guess:" ? ? ? ? ? ?# features/
> codebreaker_starts_game.feature:11
>
> 1 scenario (1 undefined)
> 4 steps (2 undefined, 2 passed)
> 0m0.003s
>
> You can implement step definitions for undefined steps with these
> snippets:
>
> Then /^the game should say "([^\"]*)"$/ do |arg1|
> ?pending
> end
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> It seems it doesn't think my "Then" statement is defined, but it is.
> My /step_definitions/mastermind.rb file looks like this...
>
> Given /^I am not yet playing$/ do
> end
>
>
> When /^I start a new game$/ do
> @messenger = StringIO.new
> game = Mastermind::Game.new(@messenger)
> game.start
> end
>
> Then /^the game should say "(.*)" $/ do |message|

There is an extra space here between "(.*)" and $. This should work:

  Then /^the game should say "(.*)"$/ do |message|

Also, we changed the name of the game in the most recent version of
the beta, so you may want to update.

Cheers,
David

> @messenger.string.split("\n" ).should include(message)
> end
>
> __________________________________________
>
> It's either a problem with the syntax in the "Then" statement, or my
> "message" variable isn't getting defined right. Any help would be
> appreciated, and I can provide my other files, but I'm a newbie and
> I'm not sure what files would be worth looking at. Let me know and
> I'll post them.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From chris at silhouettesolutions.net  Mon Jul  6 15:31:38 2009
From: chris at silhouettesolutions.net (internetchris)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 12:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] Rspec book issue (mastermind example)
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907061101m3a674a98i5280be20be720038@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a442ee53-b97d-4d2e-865b-78094ff33436@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907061101m3a674a98i5280be20be720038@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2219a2d2-967d-431a-80a3-3b2a7e9be8ef@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>

Beautiful, that worked great. I sent an e-mail to the pragmatic
support people to get the latest version of the book. For some reason
it's not showing up in my Bookshelf.

Thanks David

On Jul 6, 12:01?pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Chris
>
>
>
> Sund<ch... at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
> > Hey Everyone,
>
> > Just a simple question. I have read and re-read the examples and I'm
> > not getting the proper output. ?I'm on page 73/74 of the Rspec book
> > and it says I should have "4 steps passed". I think the problem is
> > within my /step_definition/mastermind.rb" file. It's definitely not
> > beyond me to make a mistake, but I have checked and double checked my
> > code and it all looks fine via the book examples. Here's the output
> > I'm getting...
>
> > ______________________________________________________
>
> > cucumber features
> > Feature: code-breaker starts game
>
> > As a code-breaker
> > I want to start a game
> > So that I can break the code
>
> > ?Scenario: start game ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?# features/
> > codebreaker_starts_game.feature:7
> > ? ?Given I am not yet playing ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?# features/
> > step_definitions/mastermind.rb:3
> > ? ?When I start a new game ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? # features/
> > step_definitions/mastermind.rb:7
> > ? ?Then the game should say "Welcome to Mastermind!" # features/
> > codebreaker_starts_game.feature:10
> > ? ?And the game should say "Enter guess:" ? ? ? ? ? ?# features/
> > codebreaker_starts_game.feature:11
>
> > 1 scenario (1 undefined)
> > 4 steps (2 undefined, 2 passed)
> > 0m0.003s
>
> > You can implement step definitions for undefined steps with these
> > snippets:
>
> > Then /^the game should say "([^\"]*)"$/ do |arg1|
> > ?pending
> > end
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > It seems it doesn't think my "Then" statement is defined, but it is.
> > My /step_definitions/mastermind.rb file looks like this...
>
> > Given /^I am not yet playing$/ do
> > end
>
> > When /^I start a new game$/ do
> > @messenger = StringIO.new
> > game = Mastermind::Game.new(@messenger)
> > game.start
> > end
>
> > Then /^the game should say "(.*)" $/ do |message|
>
> There is an extra space here between "(.*)" and $. This should work:
>
> ? Then /^the game should say "(.*)"$/ do |message|
>
> Also, we changed the name of the game in the most recent version of
> the beta, so you may want to update.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
>
> > @messenger.string.split("\n" ).should include(message)
> > end
>
> > __________________________________________
>
> > It's either a problem with the syntax in the "Then" statement, or my
> > "message" variable isn't getting defined right. Any help would be
> > appreciated, and I can provide my other files, but I'm a newbie and
> > I'm not sure what files would be worth looking at. Let me know and
> > I'll post them.
>
> > Thanks!
>
> > Chris
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul  6 15:43:00 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:43:00 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Rspec book issue (mastermind example)
In-Reply-To: <2219a2d2-967d-431a-80a3-3b2a7e9be8ef@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
References: <a442ee53-b97d-4d2e-865b-78094ff33436@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907061101m3a674a98i5280be20be720038@mail.gmail.com>
	<2219a2d2-967d-431a-80a3-3b2a7e9be8ef@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907061243k3f43986eu96fefb3293e24229@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:31 PM,
internetchris<chris at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
> Beautiful, that worked great. I sent an e-mail to the pragmatic
> support people to get the latest version of the book. For some reason
> it's not showing up in my Bookshelf.

Great. Thanks for reading it and going through the examples!

Cheers,
David

>
> Thanks David
>
> On Jul 6, 12:01?pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> Sund<ch... at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
>> > Hey Everyone,
>>
>> > Just a simple question. I have read and re-read the examples and I'm
>> > not getting the proper output. ?I'm on page 73/74 of the Rspec book
>> > and it says I should have "4 steps passed". I think the problem is
>> > within my /step_definition/mastermind.rb" file. It's definitely not
>> > beyond me to make a mistake, but I have checked and double checked my
>> > code and it all looks fine via the book examples. Here's the output
>> > I'm getting...
>>
>> > ______________________________________________________
>>
>> > cucumber features
>> > Feature: code-breaker starts game
>>
>> > As a code-breaker
>> > I want to start a game
>> > So that I can break the code
>>
>> > ?Scenario: start game ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?# features/
>> > codebreaker_starts_game.feature:7
>> > ? ?Given I am not yet playing ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?# features/
>> > step_definitions/mastermind.rb:3
>> > ? ?When I start a new game ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? # features/
>> > step_definitions/mastermind.rb:7
>> > ? ?Then the game should say "Welcome to Mastermind!" # features/
>> > codebreaker_starts_game.feature:10
>> > ? ?And the game should say "Enter guess:" ? ? ? ? ? ?# features/
>> > codebreaker_starts_game.feature:11
>>
>> > 1 scenario (1 undefined)
>> > 4 steps (2 undefined, 2 passed)
>> > 0m0.003s
>>
>> > You can implement step definitions for undefined steps with these
>> > snippets:
>>
>> > Then /^the game should say "([^\"]*)"$/ do |arg1|
>> > ?pending
>> > end
>>
>> > _______________________________________________
>>
>> > It seems it doesn't think my "Then" statement is defined, but it is.
>> > My /step_definitions/mastermind.rb file looks like this...
>>
>> > Given /^I am not yet playing$/ do
>> > end
>>
>> > When /^I start a new game$/ do
>> > @messenger = StringIO.new
>> > game = Mastermind::Game.new(@messenger)
>> > game.start
>> > end
>>
>> > Then /^the game should say "(.*)" $/ do |message|
>>
>> There is an extra space here between "(.*)" and $. This should work:
>>
>> ? Then /^the game should say "(.*)"$/ do |message|
>>
>> Also, we changed the name of the game in the most recent version of
>> the beta, so you may want to update.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>> > @messenger.string.split("\n" ).should include(message)
>> > end
>>
>> > __________________________________________
>>
>> > It's either a problem with the syntax in the "Then" statement, or my
>> > "message" variable isn't getting defined right. Any help would be
>> > appreciated, and I can provide my other files, but I'm a newbie and
>> > I'm not sure what files would be worth looking at. Let me know and
>> > I'll post them.
>>
>> > Thanks!
>>
>> > Chris
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rspec-users mailing list
>> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
>> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From zach.lists at gmail.com  Tue Jul  7 08:17:25 2009
From: zach.lists at gmail.com (Zach Moazeni)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:17:25 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] should_receive with a block
In-Reply-To: <50873a360907070427j3a2ae3c2qb9be11e7c06d8ffc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50873a360907070427j3a2ae3c2qb9be11e7c06d8ffc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75EEADB6-8866-4401-9870-6720DD57D6C9@gmail.com>

Hey Doug,

That won't work because of how Ruby handles the equality of lambdas/ 
procs.

 From my experience there are 2 approaches.

1) Test both the "call" and the block together. So instead of mocking  
Util, mock SfProperty.

or

2) Store the lambda somewhere (like a Class variable). Test the lambda  
separately, and test the "call" separately, but treat the lambda as a  
black box. (though I'm sure you could do something funky with  
redefining the Class variable within the test, and asserting that the  
redefinition got passed in the "call" method).

Testing passed lambdas/procs can be tricky because you're testing the  
behavior of something that _defines behavior_ and passes it to  
something else.

On Jul 7, 2009, at 7:27 AM, doug livesey wrote:

> Hi -- can I specify the block that should be called with a method?
> Sort of like this:
>
>     it "should bulk update the properties_params in groups of 50" do
>       block = lambda do |params|
>         SfProperty.put( :bulk_update, :sf_properties => params )
>       end
>
>        
> Util.should_receive( :do_to_in_groups_of ).with( @properties_params,  
> 50, &block )
>
>       do_call
>     end
>
> Or am I dreaming?
> Cheers,
>    Doug.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

--
Zach Moazeni
http://simplechatter.com




From zach.lists at gmail.com  Tue Jul  7 08:29:23 2009
From: zach.lists at gmail.com (Zach Moazeni)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:29:23 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] [Rails] Controller testing problem
In-Reply-To: <96354295919f15271ea31829c858a559@ruby-forum.com>
References: <96354295919f15271ea31829c858a559@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <41814839-A3C3-49A2-900E-4C8CF53DC563@gmail.com>

Hey Ignacy,

I think I'm in the minority on this one, but I tend to keep my action  
logic independent of filters. Doing that, my typical controller spec  
begins like this:

require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper')
require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helpers/ 
controller_behaviors')

describe SomeController do
   stub_all_filters!

   describe ...

   ...
end

The method "stub_all_filters!" is a custom rolled, per project  
maintained, rspec hack that rips through Rails's internal methods to  
find the filters on a controller and creates a "before do ... end"  
that stubs each filter to "true" [1]

I still use before filters because it's a good fit for many plugins  
such as ssl_requirement and authentication. However 1) I don't  
explicitly split up controller action behavior into filters and 2) the  
controller actions can depend on the filters indirectly by consuming  
methods like "self.current_user"

I know you're maintaining prior-written code, but I thought this would  
be relevant. I hope this helps more than it confuses.

[1] - http://gist.github.com/142047

On Jul 1, 2009, at 4:18 AM, Ignacy Moryc wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm working on a legacy app - it was created in 1.2.5 then over time
> ported to 2.3. It has absolutely no tests - and I'm trying to fix that
> in between adding new functionality.
>
> My problem right now is that my ApplicationController is running
> before_filters for setting different request variables (like current
> location, etc.) and this messes up my tests - I can't test responses
> properly (they are all redirects because ApplicationController derives
> from SiteController which actions implement setting variables). What's
> worse I can't test assigns hash - it doesn't get proper values  
> assigned.
>
> Is there a way for RSpec to skip the filters in tests? Or to stop
> ApplicationController to derive from SiteController?
>
> Thanks,
> Ignacy

--
Zach Moazeni
http://simplechatter.com




From zach.lists at gmail.com  Tue Jul  7 08:37:42 2009
From: zach.lists at gmail.com (Zach Moazeni)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:37:42 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] [Rails] Controller testing problem
In-Reply-To: <41814839-A3C3-49A2-900E-4C8CF53DC563@gmail.com>
References: <96354295919f15271ea31829c858a559@ruby-forum.com>
	<41814839-A3C3-49A2-900E-4C8CF53DC563@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2ED34508-60FF-449F-B64C-2ADF1EEF3DDE@gmail.com>

Bleh,

I forgot to mention, if you have to maintain controller action code  
that is dependent on instance variables set elsewhere, here is a ruby  
hack that will allow you to setup the context. (Please note, I  
recommend refactoring the code under test but I understand sometimes  
the preconditions of a test need to be a little....slimy. However,  
both the code and the spec are smelly)

require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper')
require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helpers/ 
controller_behaviors')

describe SomeController do
   stub_all_filters!

   describe "#foo" do
     def do_get
       get :foo
     end

     it "should do something" do
       controller.send(:instance_variable_set, "@bar", "here's bar")
       do_get
     end
   end
end

class SomeController < ApplicationController
   def foo
     p "need to do something with #{@bar}"
   end
end

Here's a gist in case the code formatting goes awry http://gist.github.com/142050 
  .

On Jul 7, 2009, at 8:29 AM, Zach Moazeni wrote:

> Hey Ignacy,
>
> I think I'm in the minority on this one, but I tend to keep my  
> action logic independent of filters. Doing that, my typical  
> controller spec begins like this:
>
> require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper')
> require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helpers/ 
> controller_behaviors')
>
> describe SomeController do
>  stub_all_filters!
>
>  describe ...
>
>  ...
> end
>
> The method "stub_all_filters!" is a custom rolled, per project  
> maintained, rspec hack that rips through Rails's internal methods to  
> find the filters on a controller and creates a "before do ... end"  
> that stubs each filter to "true" [1]
>
> I still use before filters because it's a good fit for many plugins  
> such as ssl_requirement and authentication. However 1) I don't  
> explicitly split up controller action behavior into filters and 2)  
> the controller actions can depend on the filters indirectly by  
> consuming methods like "self.current_user"
>
> I know you're maintaining prior-written code, but I thought this  
> would be relevant. I hope this helps more than it confuses.
>
> [1] - http://gist.github.com/142047

--
Zach Moazeni
http://simplechatter.com




From chris at silhouettesolutions.net  Tue Jul  7 11:35:01 2009
From: chris at silhouettesolutions.net (Chris Sund)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] Noob syntax questions regarding rspec book...
Message-ID: <86e86e5c-ef82-4c85-9807-6fe729ae252f@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>

Hey Everyone,

I've been working my way through the Rspec book trying to absorb and
understand everything. This is my first time with BDD and I'm just
trying to figure out some simple syntax stuff. My questions revolve
around some of the syntaxing used in the book. These are really simple
questions.


1.) Given /^the secret code is (. . . .)$/ do |code|
        Is (. . . .) simply a place holder? could I use something like
(- - - -) instead, or does it actually mean something?

2.) Then /^the mark should be (.*)$/ do |mark|
        Similar question....what does .* represent?



3.) In the following example why don't I pass   |guess| to the When
statement? I'm sure it has something to do with the (code.split)
syntax, I'm just not sure what.

When /^I guess (. . . .)$/ do |code|
@game.guess(code.split)
end


4.) And finally what does ("\n") do?

Then /^the mark should be (.*)$/ do |mark|
  @messenger.string.split("\n").should include(mark)
end





Thank You!

Chris

From hayafirst at gmail.com  Tue Jul  7 11:46:38 2009
From: hayafirst at gmail.com (Yi Wen)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 10:46:38 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Noob syntax questions regarding rspec book...
In-Reply-To: <86e86e5c-ef82-4c85-9807-6fe729ae252f@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
References: <86e86e5c-ef82-4c85-9807-6fe729ae252f@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <AA6E1001-E0E8-4651-8BC3-E90C09F09FF5@gmail.com>

They are regex.
On Jul 7, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Chris Sund wrote:

> Hey Everyone,
>
> I've been working my way through the Rspec book trying to absorb and
> understand everything. This is my first time with BDD and I'm just
> trying to figure out some simple syntax stuff. My questions revolve
> around some of the syntaxing used in the book. These are really simple
> questions.
>
>
> 1.) Given /^the secret code is (. . . .)$/ do |code|
>        Is (. . . .) simply a place holder? could I use something like
> (- - - -) instead, or does it actually mean something?
>
> 2.) Then /^the mark should be (.*)$/ do |mark|
>        Similar question....what does .* represent?
>
>
>
> 3.) In the following example why don't I pass   |guess| to the When
> statement? I'm sure it has something to do with the (code.split)
> syntax, I'm just not sure what.
>
> When /^I guess (. . . .)$/ do |code|
> @game.guess(code.split)
> end
>
>
> 4.) And finally what does ("\n") do?
>
> Then /^the mark should be (.*)$/ do |mark|
>  @messenger.string.split("\n").should include(mark)
> end
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank You!
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jul  7 12:07:07 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:07:07 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Noob syntax questions regarding rspec book...
In-Reply-To: <86e86e5c-ef82-4c85-9807-6fe729ae252f@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
References: <86e86e5c-ef82-4c85-9807-6fe729ae252f@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907070907r24c83363t2f31b4f274a06436@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Chris
Sund<chris at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
> Hey Everyone,
>
> I've been working my way through the Rspec book trying to absorb and
> understand everything. This is my first time with BDD and I'm just
> trying to figure out some simple syntax stuff. My questions revolve
> around some of the syntaxing used in the book. These are really simple
> questions.

Hey Chris,

The book assumes a basic working knowledge of Ruby. The questions you
are asking are about Ruby, not about RSpec or Cucumber. I'll answer
them for you here, but I don't think this is appropriate or necessary
for the book itself.

> 1.) Given /^the secret code is (. . . .)$/ do |code|
> ? ? ? ?Is (. . . .) simply a place holder? could I use something like
> (- - - -) instead, or does it actually mean something?

The argument to Given is a regular expression. The "." means "any
character", so (. . . .) means any four characters with spaces in
between. There are certainly more specific and fool-proof ways we
could express this, but this is a very simple way, and works just fine
in the context of a cucumber step definition.

> 2.) Then /^the mark should be (.*)$/ do |mark|
> ? ? ? ?Similar question....what does .* represent?

The "." means any character and the "*" means any number of times.

> 3.) In the following example why don't I pass ? |guess| to the When
> statement? I'm sure it has something to do with the (code.split)
> syntax, I'm just not sure what.
>
> When /^I guess (. . . .)$/ do |code|
> @game.guess(code.split)
> end

You're correct - code.split converts "r y g c" to ['r', 'y', 'g',
'c'], which is what the game wants to receive (an array, rather than a
string).

> 4.) And finally what does ("\n") do?
>
> Then /^the mark should be (.*)$/ do |mark|
> ?@messenger.string.split("\n").should include(mark)
> end

The @messenger is a StringIO object. It receives puts() statements and
adds them to it's string attribute with a line break ("\n") at the end
so if you do this:

@messenger.puts "a"
@messenger.puts "b"

Then the result of @messenger.string is "a\nb\n"

Splitting that on "\n" results in ["a","b"], which allows you to ask
if that result includes "a", for example:

  @messenger.split("\n").include?("a")

Which can be expressed as an expectation in RSpec like this:

  @messenger.split("\n").should include("a")


HTH,
David

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

From rick.denatale at gmail.com  Tue Jul  7 12:12:24 2009
From: rick.denatale at gmail.com (Rick DeNatale)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 12:12:24 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Noob syntax questions regarding rspec book...
In-Reply-To: <86e86e5c-ef82-4c85-9807-6fe729ae252f@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
References: <86e86e5c-ef82-4c85-9807-6fe729ae252f@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <deb2337a0907070912y271b67acxbd78d60822b0d676@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Chris
Sund<chris at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
> Hey Everyone,
>
> I've been working my way through the Rspec book trying to absorb and
> understand everything. This is my first time with BDD and I'm just
> trying to figure out some simple syntax stuff. My questions revolve
> around some of the syntaxing used in the book. These are really simple
> questions.
>
>
> 1.) Given /^the secret code is (. . . .)$/ do |code|
> ? ? ? ?Is (. . . .) simply a place holder? could I use something like
> (- - - -) instead, or does it actually mean something?

Yes it actually means something. the stuff between // is a regular
expression, and some of the characters have meaning.

   ^ means the beginning of the string
   $ means the end of the string
   Each . will mark a single character, any character will do.
  The parens mark a group, the part of the string which marks the
group will be assigned to the code parameter.
  So when the whole regex matches code will be set to the four
characters of the code separated by spaces.
>
> 2.) Then /^the mark should be (.*)$/ do |mark|
> ? ? ? ?Similar question....what does .* represent?

it means zero or more arbitrary characters

> 3.) In the following example why don't I pass ? |guess| to the When
> statement? I'm sure it has something to do with the (code.split)
> syntax, I'm just not sure what.
>
> When /^I guess (. . . .)$/ do |code|
> @game.guess(code.split)
> end

There isn't a variable named guess here. As I said in answer to the
first question, if the story says

    When I guess 1 3 4 2

then when the step is executed the code parameter to the block will be
set to "1 3 4 2" and "1 3 4 2".split gives ["1", "3", "4", "2"]
> 4.) And finally what does ("\n") do?
>
> Then /^the mark should be (.*)$/ do |mark|
> ?@messenger.string.split("\n").should include(mark)
> end

"\n" is a ruby string literal representing a new-line, so
   @messenger.string.split("\n") results in an array comprising each
line within @messenger.string



-- 
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

From ben at benmabey.com  Tue Jul  7 13:11:51 2009
From: ben at benmabey.com (Ben Mabey)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:11:51 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Noob syntax questions regarding rspec book...
In-Reply-To: <deb2337a0907070912y271b67acxbd78d60822b0d676@mail.gmail.com>
References: <86e86e5c-ef82-4c85-9807-6fe729ae252f@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
	<deb2337a0907070912y271b67acxbd78d60822b0d676@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A5381D7.6000609@benmabey.com>

Rick DeNatale wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Chris
> Sund<chris at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
>   
>> Hey Everyone,
>>
>> I've been working my way through the Rspec book trying to absorb and
>> understand everything. This is my first time with BDD and I'm just
>> trying to figure out some simple syntax stuff. My questions revolve
>> around some of the syntaxing used in the book. These are really simple
>> questions.
>>
>>
>> 1.) Given /^the secret code is (. . . .)$/ do |code|
>>        Is (. . . .) simply a place holder? could I use something like
>> (- - - -) instead, or does it actually mean something?
>>     
>
> Yes it actually means something. the stuff between // is a regular
> expression, and some of the characters have meaning.
>
>    ^ means the beginning of the string
>    $ means the end of the string
>    Each . will mark a single character, any character will do.
>   The parens mark a group, the part of the string which marks the
> group will be assigned to the code parameter.
>   So when the whole regex matches code will be set to the four
> characters of the code separated by spaces.
>   
>> 2.) Then /^the mark should be (.*)$/ do |mark|
>>        Similar question....what does .* represent?
>>     
>
> it means zero or more arbitrary characters
>
>   
>> 3.) In the following example why don't I pass   |guess| to the When
>> statement? I'm sure it has something to do with the (code.split)
>> syntax, I'm just not sure what.
>>
>> When /^I guess (. . . .)$/ do |code|
>> @game.guess(code.split)
>> end
>>     
>
> There isn't a variable named guess here. As I said in answer to the
> first question, if the story says
>
>     When I guess 1 3 4 2
>
> then when the step is executed the code parameter to the block will be
> set to "1 3 4 2" and "1 3 4 2".split gives ["1", "3", "4", "2"]
>   
>> 4.) And finally what does ("\n") do?
>>
>> Then /^the mark should be (.*)$/ do |mark|
>>  @messenger.string.split("\n").should include(mark)
>> end
>>     
>
> "\n" is a ruby string literal representing a new-line, so
>    @messenger.string.split("\n") results in an array comprising each
> line within @messenger.string
>
>
>
>   


Chris,
FYI, a good resource to learn and play around with reg exps in ruby is: 
http://rubular.com/

-Ben

From stephen.smithstone at gmail.com  Tue Jul  7 11:49:02 2009
From: stephen.smithstone at gmail.com (ssmithstone)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] Noob syntax questions regarding rspec book...
In-Reply-To: <86e86e5c-ef82-4c85-9807-6fe729ae252f@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
References: <86e86e5c-ef82-4c85-9807-6fe729ae252f@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <f48695bb-1cde-4ba9-bd32-1d46d16a1246@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>

I to am in the same situation and the meaning of the /^ $/ is a
regular expression so it matches yours features so in your features is
you do

Give some random text I guess some more random test

the code would run against that given method, hope that makes sense
and that's my view of the code

On Jul 7, 4:35?pm, Chris Sund <ch... at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
> Hey Everyone,
>
> I've been working my way through the Rspec book trying to absorb and
> understand everything. This is my first time with BDD and I'm just
> trying to figure out some simple syntax stuff. My questions revolve
> around some of the syntaxing used in the book. These are really simple
> questions.
>
> 1.) Given /^the secret code is (. . . .)$/ do |code|
> ? ? ? ? Is (. . . .) simply a place holder? could I use something like
> (- - - -) instead, or does it actually mean something?
>
> 2.) Then /^the mark should be (.*)$/ do |mark|
> ? ? ? ? Similar question....what does .* represent?
>
> 3.) In the following example why don't I pass ? |guess| to the When
> statement? I'm sure it has something to do with the (code.split)
> syntax, I'm just not sure what.
>
> When /^I guess (. . . .)$/ do |code|
> @game.guess(code.split)
> end
>
> 4.) And finally what does ("\n") do?
>
> Then /^the mark should be (.*)$/ do |mark|
> ? @messenger.string.split("\n").should include(mark)
> end
>
> Thank You!
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Wed Jul  8 03:52:38 2009
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Pirkka Hartikainen)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:52:38 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Cucumber: Running a single feature / scenario
In-Reply-To: <8d961d900809011330y1bcc1178qac683e6e08b22c6a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9AA10895-5708-4DBD-A807-AA7F81ED2BE8@mattwynne.net>
	<57c63afe0809011245o3ef36a69hd8a7aa7ad0fc01ee@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d961d900809011330y1bcc1178qac683e6e08b22c6a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cdafdfb5323d9fda6914593106db4021@ruby-forum.com>

--line option has been deprecated, use the colon syntax instead.

cucumber path/to/file.feature --line 33

has become

cucumber path/to/file.feature:33


PS. updating this thread because of a high google page rank, it's the 
first search result for "cucumber running a single scenario"
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From ben at benmabey.com  Wed Jul  8 11:33:57 2009
From: ben at benmabey.com (Ben Mabey)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:33:57 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] loading custom matchers into cucumber
In-Reply-To: <8277b7f40907080828y79e753f6y5a1bac1eb198092e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8277b7f40907080824s1e16b41el39cd1bdb45cda5f5@mail.gmail.com>
	<8277b7f40907080828y79e753f6y5a1bac1eb198092e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A54BC65.3080203@benmabey.com>

Joaquin Rivera Padron wrote:
>
>     hi there,
>     In a step I need to assert (don't know hoe to translate this into
>     "should" terms) state before keep going, example:
>
Perhaps you need to make an "expectation" instead of an "assert"?  :)


>
>     Given "I have signed up as tom who is an admin" do |user, role| do
>         # call some steps to create user tom
>
>     end
>
>
> oops, sorry that was gone unfinished!
>
> Given "I have signed up as tom who is an admin" do |user, role| do
>     # call some steps to create user tom
>     # I need to assert that tom really have the rol (this is not the 
> most important, so please bear with me)
>     user_should_have_role user, role
> end
>
> that as you see is not very pretty, I would like to do:
>
> Spec::Matchers.define :have_rol do |role|
>   match do |user|
>     user.roles.collect{ |r| r.name <http://r.name> }.include?(role)
>   end
> end
>
> and then "assert":
>
> tom.should have_role role
>
> only I don't get to load the matcher. how you normally load custom 
> machters to be used in cucumber?


Try putting your Spec::Matchers.define block in your env.rb file to see 
if that works.  I haven't looked closely at how the new matcher DSL adds 
the matchers but I would think that would work.

-Ben

From ed.ruder at gmail.com  Wed Jul  8 15:03:57 2009
From: ed.ruder at gmail.com (Ed Ruder)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 12:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] Routes helpers work differently from helper
	examples compared to page rendering
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907041553s223a0c21o5023428dc29392d8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <358a910b-edea-4dce-a745-26a474f31647@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907041553s223a0c21o5023428dc29392d8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1c3c86ea-4145-4314-877d-b6a71779a4b5@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>

I don't think that ticket applies to my problem--as I read it,
https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/843 is about
enhancing RSpec with additional routing tests/specs.

My issue is that in the context of a helper spec, when calling route
helpers (_url/_path methods) from a helper, a different Rails code
path is executed, giving different results in some cases.  This means
that sometimes your helper specs pass when the helper "in the wild"
doesn't do what's spec'd--you cannot trust your specs!

Thoughts?

Ed

On Jul 4, 3:53?pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ed Ruder<ed.ru... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have a helper that calls a Rails route _url method. In the context
> > of a helper spec file, the route helper method ends up calling url_for
> > in rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/base.rb. In the context of
> > rendering a page, the route helper method calls url_for in rails/
> > actionpack/lib/action_view/helpers/url_helper.rb. Though very similar,
> > they can return different results, as I found out.
>
> > Specifically, ActionController::Base#url_for doesn't do html escaping--
> > ActionView::Helpers::UrlHelper#url_for does, and has an additional
> > parameter, :escape => true|false, to controller whether or not the
> > escaping is done.
>
> > This took some frustrating time to track down.
>
> > Since the code path executed by helper examples is not the same as
> > production, tests can produce invalid results. Also, some behavior
> > cannot be tested, since the code generating the results is not being
> > executed.
>
> > Is this a bug in RSpec, or is there a "correct" way to test helpers
> > that I'm missing?
>
> Not sure if this is directly related, but you may be interested in
> this ticket:https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/843
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From chris at silhouettesolutions.net  Thu Jul  9 00:43:35 2009
From: chris at silhouettesolutions.net (internetchris)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 21:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] Noob syntax questions regarding rspec book...
In-Reply-To: <f48695bb-1cde-4ba9-bd32-1d46d16a1246@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
References: <86e86e5c-ef82-4c85-9807-6fe729ae252f@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
	<f48695bb-1cde-4ba9-bd32-1d46d16a1246@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <3b2e2083-20f4-49e4-86ab-8972f89c2032@i8g2000pro.googlegroups.com>

Hey everyone,

I appreciate the replies. After I posted I realized I was looking at
ruby code. It seems this is where my learning curve is going to take a
leap. I understand Rails, I am starting to understand Rspec and
Cucumber, and I understand programming. This is my second language,
but it's the first time I have had to learn something new. I come from
a foxpro background and it seems I need to dig into the Ruby language
a little more. I keep forgetting that Rails is simply a framework and
not the language - the same is true for Rspec. I hope to laugh at my
mistakes in a year or two :-)

Thanks!

Chris Sund

On Jul 7, 9:49?am, ssmithstone <stephen.smithst... at gmail.com> wrote:
> I to am in the same situation and the meaning of the /^ $/ is a
> regular expression so it matches yours features so in your features is
> you do
>
> Give some random text I guess some more random test
>
> the code would run against that given method, hope that makes sense
> and that's my view of the code
>
> On Jul 7, 4:35?pm, Chris Sund <ch... at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
>
> > Hey Everyone,
>
> > I've been working my way through the Rspec book trying to absorb and
> > understand everything. This is my first time with BDD and I'm just
> > trying to figure out some simple syntax stuff. My questions revolve
> > around some of the syntaxing used in the book. These are really simple
> > questions.
>
> > 1.) Given /^the secret code is (. . . .)$/ do |code|
> > ? ? ? ? Is (. . . .) simply a place holder? could I use something like
> > (- - - -) instead, or does it actually mean something?
>
> > 2.) Then /^the mark should be (.*)$/ do |mark|
> > ? ? ? ? Similar question....what does .* represent?
>
> > 3.) In the following example why don't I pass ? |guess| to the When
> > statement? I'm sure it has something to do with the (code.split)
> > syntax, I'm just not sure what.
>
> > When /^I guess (. . . .)$/ do |code|
> > @game.guess(code.split)
> > end
>
> > 4.) And finally what does ("\n") do?
>
> > Then /^the mark should be (.*)$/ do |mark|
> > ? @messenger.string.split("\n").should include(mark)
> > end
>
> > Thank You!
>
> > Chris
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From chris at silhouettesolutions.net  Thu Jul  9 00:51:16 2009
From: chris at silhouettesolutions.net (internetchris)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 21:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] Noob syntax questions regarding rspec book...
In-Reply-To: <3b2e2083-20f4-49e4-86ab-8972f89c2032@i8g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
References: <86e86e5c-ef82-4c85-9807-6fe729ae252f@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
	<f48695bb-1cde-4ba9-bd32-1d46d16a1246@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> 
	<3b2e2083-20f4-49e4-86ab-8972f89c2032@i8g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <c9f29e24-e48b-47d0-becc-78b60c6ed95a@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>

In addition - Ben thanks for the link, I just checked it out.  Rubular
seems like an awesome little tool and I will bookmark the page. I
really appreciate all of the help and hope I can return the favor one
day.

Thanks!

Chris

On Jul 8, 10:43?pm, internetchris <ch... at silhouettesolutions.net>
wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> I appreciate the replies. After I posted I realized I was looking at
> ruby code. It seems this is where my learning curve is going to take a
> leap. I understand Rails, I am starting to understand Rspec and
> Cucumber, and I understand programming. This is my second language,
> but it's the first time I have had to learn something new. I come from
> a foxpro background and it seems I need to dig into the Ruby language
> a little more. I keep forgetting that Rails is simply a framework and
> not the language - the same is true for Rspec. I hope to laugh at my
> mistakes in a year or two :-)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Chris Sund
>
> On Jul 7, 9:49?am, ssmithstone <stephen.smithst... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I to am in the same situation and the meaning of the /^ $/ is a
> > regular expression so it matches yours features so in your features is
> > you do
>
> > Give some random text I guess some more random test
>
> > the code would run against that given method, hope that makes sense
> > and that's my view of the code
>
> > On Jul 7, 4:35?pm, Chris Sund <ch... at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
>
> > > Hey Everyone,
>
> > > I've been working my way through the Rspec book trying to absorb and
> > > understand everything. This is my first time with BDD and I'm just
> > > trying to figure out some simple syntax stuff. My questions revolve
> > > around some of the syntaxing used in the book. These are really simple
> > > questions.
>
> > > 1.) Given /^the secret code is (. . . .)$/ do |code|
> > > ? ? ? ? Is (. . . .) simply a place holder? could I use something like
> > > (- - - -) instead, or does it actually mean something?
>
> > > 2.) Then /^the mark should be (.*)$/ do |mark|
> > > ? ? ? ? Similar question....what does .* represent?
>
> > > 3.) In the following example why don't I pass ? |guess| to the When
> > > statement? I'm sure it has something to do with the (code.split)
> > > syntax, I'm just not sure what.
>
> > > When /^I guess (. . . .)$/ do |code|
> > > @game.guess(code.split)
> > > end
>
> > > 4.) And finally what does ("\n") do?
>
> > > Then /^the mark should be (.*)$/ do |mark|
> > > ? @messenger.string.split("\n").should include(mark)
> > > end
>
> > > Thank You!
>
> > > Chris
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From rick.denatale at gmail.com  Thu Jul  9 09:05:09 2009
From: rick.denatale at gmail.com (Rick DeNatale)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:05:09 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Noob syntax questions regarding rspec book...
In-Reply-To: <3b2e2083-20f4-49e4-86ab-8972f89c2032@i8g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
References: <86e86e5c-ef82-4c85-9807-6fe729ae252f@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
	<f48695bb-1cde-4ba9-bd32-1d46d16a1246@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<3b2e2083-20f4-49e4-86ab-8972f89c2032@i8g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <deb2337a0907090605y71e179ebrdb35e19c4f8f0985@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 12:43 AM,
internetchris<chris at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> I appreciate the replies. After I posted I realized I was looking at
> ruby code. It seems this is where my learning curve is going to take a
> leap. I understand Rails, I am starting to understand Rspec and
> Cucumber, and I understand programming. This is my second language,
> but it's the first time I have had to learn something new. I come from
> a foxpro background and it seems I need to dig into the Ruby language
> a little more. I keep forgetting that Rails is simply a framework and
> not the language - the same is true for Rspec. I hope to laugh at my
> mistakes in a year or two :-)

And I tend to think of regular expressions as a language within a
language.  Lot's of programming languages incorporate regular
expressions with slight variations.

-- 
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul  9 10:11:55 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:11:55 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] before(:all) and nested contexts
In-Reply-To: <32d7413e0907090340m3d424b3ar7068359f692b9ef1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <32d7413e0907090340m3d424b3ar7068359f692b9ef1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907090711n1ce766edn9a9bca4388c64438@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:40 AM, Daniel Tenner<daniel.rspec at tenner.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Like everyone (?), I use nested contexts to keep my specs well organised and
> tidy.
> However, I have a problem. I have various sets of specs that needs to
> perform very time-expensive operations to set up the fixtures that will be
> examined in the tests. Two specific examples: testing access control logic
> (requires creating a whole tree of items to verify the correct access level
> against each item), and project archival (which creates a project, fills it
> with test data, archives/zips the project contents, then unzips them for
> examination).
> I tried using before(:all) to set up those costly fixtures, however I hit
> upon a feature of rspec that made that less than successful:
> When using before(:all) along with nested contexts, rspec actually re-runs
> the before(:all) before each sub-context. So if, like me, you have your
> specs neatly organised in sub-contexts, the before(:all) is actually re-run
> many times.
> Interestingly, when a before(:all) is run in the root context, rspec does
> not actually remove the data from the database when re-running the
> before(:all). "Great," I then thought, "I can just detect whether the data
> is created and decide whether or not to create the objects on that basis".
> Not so fast, though: Rspec may not clobber the database, but it does clobber
> instance variables. In the case of the access control test, there's about 40
> different instance variables, so keeping track of them all manually in some
> global variable outside of rspec would be messy to say the least...
> So my question is, is there any workaround for successfully using
> before(:all) and nested specs, so that code like the following works and
> doesn't run the expensive operation more than once:
> describe "Some functionality" do
> ??before(:all) do
> ?? ?@variable = some_expensive_operation
> ??end
>
> ??it "should do something" do
> ?? ?@variable.should do_something
> ??end
>
> ??describe "in a specific context" do
> ?? ?it "should do another thing" do
> ?? ? ?@variable.should do_another_thing
> ?? ?end
> ??end
> end
> Worth noting that I'm quite happy to give up the ability to have before
> blocks in the sub-contexts in order to ensure that the expensive operation
> is only run once...
> Your thoughts most welcome... (including, perhaps, telling me that I'm Doing
> It Wrong)

I wouldn't say you're doing it wrong or right. I think we really want
both options, in the end - a before(:something) concept that is not
inherited and one that is (before(:all)).

There are a couple of tickets about this in lighthouse:

https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/632
https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/819

There may be others. Please feel free to continue this in the convo on
https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/632.


> Daniel Tenner
> http://www.woobius.com
> http://danieltenner.com
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From zach.lists at gmail.com  Thu Jul  9 10:18:41 2009
From: zach.lists at gmail.com (Zach Moazeni)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:18:41 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] before(:all) and nested contexts
In-Reply-To: <32d7413e0907090340m3d424b3ar7068359f692b9ef1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <32d7413e0907090340m3d424b3ar7068359f692b9ef1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55B9FE1C-CA1B-4758-AB72-88C0E55FA762@gmail.com>

Hey Dan,

1 approach you could do is define a method within the outer describe  
that is called within the inner describe and within each test not  
contained by an inner describe.

describe "Some functionality" do
   it "should do something" do
     @variable = some_expensive_operation
     @variable.should do_something
   end

   describe "in a specific context" do
     before(:all) do
       @variable = some_expensive_operation
     end

     it "should do another thing" do
       @variable.should do_another_thing
     end
   end

   def some_expensive_operation
     p "in here"
   end
end

(also uploaded to http://gist.github.com/143693)

My solution is to unDRY the subcontext's preconditions. I have pretty  
strong opinions about DRYing up specs at the cost of grokability.

On Jul 9, 2009, at 6:40 AM, Daniel Tenner wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Like everyone (?), I use nested contexts to keep my specs well  
> organised and tidy.
>
> However, I have a problem. I have various sets of specs that needs  
> to perform very time-expensive operations to set up the fixtures  
> that will be examined in the tests. Two specific examples: testing  
> access control logic (requires creating a whole tree of items to  
> verify the correct access level against each item), and project  
> archival (which creates a project, fills it with test data, archives/ 
> zips the project contents, then unzips them for examination).
>
> I tried using before(:all) to set up those costly fixtures, however  
> I hit upon a feature of rspec that made that less than successful:
>
> When using before(:all) along with nested contexts, rspec actually  
> re-runs the before(:all) before each sub-context. So if, like me,  
> you have your specs neatly organised in sub-contexts, the  
> before(:all) is actually re-run many times.
>
> Interestingly, when a before(:all) is run in the root context, rspec  
> does not actually remove the data from the database when re-running  
> the before(:all). "Great," I then thought, "I can just detect  
> whether the data is created and decide whether or not to create the  
> objects on that basis". Not so fast, though: Rspec may not clobber  
> the database, but it does clobber instance variables. In the case of  
> the access control test, there's about 40 different instance  
> variables, so keeping track of them all manually in some global  
> variable outside of rspec would be messy to say the least...
>
> So my question is, is there any workaround for successfully using  
> before(:all) and nested specs, so that code like the following works  
> and doesn't run the expensive operation more than once:
>
> describe "Some functionality" do
>   before(:all) do
>     @variable = some_expensive_operation
>   end
>
>   it "should do something" do
>     @variable.should do_something
>   end
>
>   describe "in a specific context" do
>     it "should do another thing" do
>       @variable.should do_another_thing
>     end
>   end
> end
>
> Worth noting that I'm quite happy to give up the ability to have  
> before blocks in the sub-contexts in order to ensure that the  
> expensive operation is only run once...
>
> Your thoughts most welcome... (including, perhaps, telling me that  
> I'm Doing It Wrong)
>
> Daniel Tenner
> http://www.woobius.com
> http://danieltenner.com
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

--
Zach Moazeni
http://simplechatter.com




From zach.lists at gmail.com  Thu Jul  9 10:22:53 2009
From: zach.lists at gmail.com (Zach Moazeni)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:22:53 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] before(:all) and nested contexts
In-Reply-To: <55B9FE1C-CA1B-4758-AB72-88C0E55FA762@gmail.com>
References: <32d7413e0907090340m3d424b3ar7068359f692b9ef1@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B9FE1C-CA1B-4758-AB72-88C0E55FA762@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <89A30079-988A-4F2B-8CA4-6EFB8D60BAC9@gmail.com>


Rereading your original email, I'm thinking I may not have entirely  
understood your situation.

1) Looks like you've already defined the  
"some_expensive_operation" (but that's minor)

2) Is it your goal to call "some_expensive_operation" once and only  
once?

On Jul 9, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Zach Moazeni wrote:

> Hey Dan,
>
> 1 approach you could do is define a method within the outer describe  
> that is called within the inner describe and within each test not  
> contained by an inner describe.
>
> describe "Some functionality" do
>  it "should do something" do
>    @variable = some_expensive_operation
>    @variable.should do_something
>  end
>
>  describe "in a specific context" do
>    before(:all) do
>      @variable = some_expensive_operation
>    end
>
>    it "should do another thing" do
>      @variable.should do_another_thing
>    end
>  end
>
>  def some_expensive_operation
>    p "in here"
>  end
> end
>
> (also uploaded to http://gist.github.com/143693)
>
> My solution is to unDRY the subcontext's preconditions. I have  
> pretty strong opinions about DRYing up specs at the cost of  
> grokability.
>
> On Jul 9, 2009, at 6:40 AM, Daniel Tenner wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Like everyone (?), I use nested contexts to keep my specs well  
>> organised and tidy.
>>
>> However, I have a problem. I have various sets of specs that needs  
>> to perform very time-expensive operations to set up the fixtures  
>> that will be examined in the tests. Two specific examples: testing  
>> access control logic (requires creating a whole tree of items to  
>> verify the correct access level against each item), and project  
>> archival (which creates a project, fills it with test data,  
>> archives/zips the project contents, then unzips them for  
>> examination).
>>
>> I tried using before(:all) to set up those costly fixtures, however  
>> I hit upon a feature of rspec that made that less than successful:
>>
>> When using before(:all) along with nested contexts, rspec actually  
>> re-runs the before(:all) before each sub-context. So if, like me,  
>> you have your specs neatly organised in sub-contexts, the  
>> before(:all) is actually re-run many times.
>>
>> Interestingly, when a before(:all) is run in the root context,  
>> rspec does not actually remove the data from the database when re- 
>> running the before(:all). "Great," I then thought, "I can just  
>> detect whether the data is created and decide whether or not to  
>> create the objects on that basis". Not so fast, though: Rspec may  
>> not clobber the database, but it does clobber instance variables.  
>> In the case of the access control test, there's about 40 different  
>> instance variables, so keeping track of them all manually in some  
>> global variable outside of rspec would be messy to say the least...
>>
>> So my question is, is there any workaround for successfully using  
>> before(:all) and nested specs, so that code like the following  
>> works and doesn't run the expensive operation more than once:
>>
>> describe "Some functionality" do
>>  before(:all) do
>>    @variable = some_expensive_operation
>>  end
>>
>>  it "should do something" do
>>    @variable.should do_something
>>  end
>>
>>  describe "in a specific context" do
>>    it "should do another thing" do
>>      @variable.should do_another_thing
>>    end
>>  end
>> end
>>
>> Worth noting that I'm quite happy to give up the ability to have  
>> before blocks in the sub-contexts in order to ensure that the  
>> expensive operation is only run once...
>>
>> Your thoughts most welcome... (including, perhaps, telling me that  
>> I'm Doing It Wrong)
>>
>> Daniel Tenner
>> http://www.woobius.com
>> http://danieltenner.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> --
> Zach Moazeni
> http://simplechatter.com
>
>
>

--
Zach Moazeni
http://simplechatter.com




From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul  9 10:40:13 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:40:13 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] before(:all) and nested contexts
In-Reply-To: <32d7413e0907090737u654edb77te52114339c7cc3c0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <32d7413e0907090340m3d424b3ar7068359f692b9ef1@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B9FE1C-CA1B-4758-AB72-88C0E55FA762@gmail.com>
	<89A30079-988A-4F2B-8CA4-6EFB8D60BAC9@gmail.com>
	<32d7413e0907090737u654edb77te52114339c7cc3c0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907090740h51df54dexe36f3cbc6d2412d9@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Daniel Tenner<daniel.rspec at tenner.org> wrote:
>> 2) Is it your goal to call "some_expensive_operation" once and only once?
>
> Yes, exactly. In the case of the project archival spec, creating a project,
> archiving it, and then unzipping it to a temporary location to look at what
> was archived is a process that takes about 3 seconds on my machine. Since
> archival isn't something people will be doing live on the site, speed is not
> an issue from a user point of view. However, there's about 25 specs (in
> about a dozen sub-contexts) examining the zip output... multiply that by 3
> seconds each, and that takes more time to run than all the other specs
> combined!
> I have actually managed to get this done using the method described in my
> blog post @
> http://www.swombat.com/getting-rspec-beforeall-and-nested-contexts-w , but I
> have to admit it's a bit hackish.
> David -?":apply_to_nested?=>?false" seems like a great way to do it, but I
> understand why you'd want to get the refactoring out of the way first. With
> my temporary hack in place, I can wait.

My message about refactoring was back in January :) If you're
interested in supplying a patch I'd be interested in accepting it.


> Thanks,
> Daniel
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Zach Moazeni <zach.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Rereading your original email, I'm thinking I may not have entirely
>> understood your situation.
>>
>> 1) Looks like you've already defined the "some_expensive_operation" (but
>> that's minor)
>>
>> 2) Is it your goal to call "some_expensive_operation" once and only once?
>>
>> On Jul 9, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Zach Moazeni wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Dan,
>>>
>>> 1 approach you could do is define a method within the outer describe that
>>> is called within the inner describe and within each test not contained by an
>>> inner describe.
>>>
>>> describe "Some functionality" do
>>> ?it "should do something" do
>>> ? @variable = some_expensive_operation
>>> ? @variable.should do_something
>>> ?end
>>>
>>> ?describe "in a specific context" do
>>> ? before(:all) do
>>> ? ? @variable = some_expensive_operation
>>> ? end
>>>
>>> ? it "should do another thing" do
>>> ? ? @variable.should do_another_thing
>>> ? end
>>> ?end
>>>
>>> ?def some_expensive_operation
>>> ? p "in here"
>>> ?end
>>> end
>>>
>>> (also uploaded to http://gist.github.com/143693)
>>>
>>> My solution is to unDRY the subcontext's preconditions. I have pretty
>>> strong opinions about DRYing up specs at the cost of grokability.
>>>
>>> On Jul 9, 2009, at 6:40 AM, Daniel Tenner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Like everyone (?), I use nested contexts to keep my specs well organised
>>>> and tidy.
>>>>
>>>> However, I have a problem. I have various sets of specs that needs to
>>>> perform very time-expensive operations to set up the fixtures that will be
>>>> examined in the tests. Two specific examples: testing access control logic
>>>> (requires creating a whole tree of items to verify the correct access level
>>>> against each item), and project archival (which creates a project, fills it
>>>> with test data, archives/zips the project contents, then unzips them for
>>>> examination).
>>>>
>>>> I tried using before(:all) to set up those costly fixtures, however I
>>>> hit upon a feature of rspec that made that less than successful:
>>>>
>>>> When using before(:all) along with nested contexts, rspec actually
>>>> re-runs the before(:all) before each sub-context. So if, like me, you have
>>>> your specs neatly organised in sub-contexts, the before(:all) is actually
>>>> re-run many times.
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly, when a before(:all) is run in the root context, rspec
>>>> does not actually remove the data from the database when re-running the
>>>> before(:all). "Great," I then thought, "I can just detect whether the data
>>>> is created and decide whether or not to create the objects on that basis".
>>>> Not so fast, though: Rspec may not clobber the database, but it does clobber
>>>> instance variables. In the case of the access control test, there's about 40
>>>> different instance variables, so keeping track of them all manually in some
>>>> global variable outside of rspec would be messy to say the least...
>>>>
>>>> So my question is, is there any workaround for successfully using
>>>> before(:all) and nested specs, so that code like the following works and
>>>> doesn't run the expensive operation more than once:
>>>>
>>>> describe "Some functionality" do
>>>> ?before(:all) do
>>>> ? @variable = some_expensive_operation
>>>> ?end
>>>>
>>>> ?it "should do something" do
>>>> ? @variable.should do_something
>>>> ?end
>>>>
>>>> ?describe "in a specific context" do
>>>> ? it "should do another thing" do
>>>> ? ? @variable.should do_another_thing
>>>> ? end
>>>> ?end
>>>> end
>>>>
>>>> Worth noting that I'm quite happy to give up the ability to have before
>>>> blocks in the sub-contexts in order to ensure that the expensive operation
>>>> is only run once...
>>>>
>>>> Your thoughts most welcome... (including, perhaps, telling me that I'm
>>>> Doing It Wrong)
>>>>
>>>> Daniel Tenner
>>>> http://www.woobius.com
>>>> http://danieltenner.com
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>
>>> --
>>> Zach Moazeni
>>> http://simplechatter.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Zach Moazeni
>> http://simplechatter.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
>

From g.zhen.ning at gmail.com  Fri Jul 10 02:06:23 2009
From: g.zhen.ning at gmail.com (nnn)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 23:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] undefined method `autorun' for Spec::Runner:Module
	(NoMethodError)?
Message-ID: <a305be51-dc95-4a8d-a1e9-d9a1eb6d371d@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>

/home/jack/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/autorun.rb:3: undefined
method `autorun' for Spec::Runner:Module (NoMethodError)
	from /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in
`gem_original_require'
	from /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in
`require'
	from /home/jack/vendor/rails/activesupport/lib/active_support/
dependencies.rb:158:in `require'



when I switch to  spec/model and run spec admin_spec.rb
it throw me a error like this, so how to deal with it?


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul 10 06:08:55 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:08:55 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] undefined method `autorun' for
	Spec::Runner:Module (NoMethodError)?
In-Reply-To: <a305be51-dc95-4a8d-a1e9-d9a1eb6d371d@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
References: <a305be51-dc95-4a8d-a1e9-d9a1eb6d371d@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907100308g2cf9df4dn571f2babed8fd71@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:06 AM, nnn<g.zhen.ning at gmail.com> wrote:
> /home/jack/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/autorun.rb:3: undefined
> method `autorun' for Spec::Runner:Module (NoMethodError)
> ? ? ? ?from /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in
> `gem_original_require'
> ? ? ? ?from /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in
> `require'
> ? ? ? ?from /home/jack/vendor/rails/activesupport/lib/active_support/
> dependencies.rb:158:in `require'
>
>
>
> when I switch to ?spec/model and run spec admin_spec.rb
> it throw me a error like this, so how to deal with it?

As things stand right now, you've got to run specs from the project
root. This is a known issue (there is a ticket in lighthouse but
naturally I can't find it now).

From jdavis at medsagetechnologies.com  Fri Jul 10 13:42:46 2009
From: jdavis at medsagetechnologies.com (jendavis)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] stricter routing specs with conditional routes
In-Reply-To: <24431748.post@talk.nabble.com>
References: <98f0d405-8840-4228-98b9-081f1acf5653@o36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
	<24431748.post@talk.nabble.com>
Message-ID: <24431870.post@talk.nabble.com>


Thank you!  This solved my problem.


Maksim Horbul wrote:
> 
> Here is the solution for that issue:
> 
>   it "should map {:action => 'edit'} to /admin/users/1" do
>     assert_generates("/admin/users/1", :controller => 'customer/users/1',
> :action => 'edit')
>   end
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/stricter-routing-specs-with-conditional-routes-tp22691023p24431870.html
Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


From max at gorbul.net  Fri Jul 10 13:34:02 2009
From: max at gorbul.net (Maksim Horbul)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] stricter routing specs with conditional routes
In-Reply-To: <98f0d405-8840-4228-98b9-081f1acf5653@o36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
References: <98f0d405-8840-4228-98b9-081f1acf5653@o36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <24431748.post@talk.nabble.com>


Here is the solution for that issue:

  it "should map {:action => 'edit'} to /admin/users/1" do
    assert_generates("/admin/users/1", :controller => 'customer/users/1',
:action => 'edit')
  end
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/stricter-routing-specs-with-conditional-routes-tp22691023p24431748.html
Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


From magic6435 at gmail.com  Sat Jul 11 11:42:51 2009
From: magic6435 at gmail.com (Michael)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 08:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] Validations are making me want to scream. help please
Message-ID: <cae3e5b6-842d-40c6-8717-eb3a27af2fb1@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>

Simply testing that my validations are working for a model called
Project.

MODEL
class Project < ActiveRecord::Base
  validates_presence_of :brief
end

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

describe Project do
  before(:each) do
    @project = Project.new(:title => "project title", :brief =>
"project brief")
  end

  it "should create a new instance given valid attributes" do
    @project.should be_valid
  end
end

ERROR
ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid in 'Project should create a new instance
given valid attributes'
Validation failed: Brief can't be blank


POST
How on earth can that be failing? its driving me nuts, i have a few
other tests that check the exact same way(method taken from the Rspec
book) so why all the sudden would it stop working on a new model. Blah
thanks for any help.

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sat Jul 11 11:50:27 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:50:27 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Validations are making me want to scream. help
	please
In-Reply-To: <cae3e5b6-842d-40c6-8717-eb3a27af2fb1@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>
References: <cae3e5b6-842d-40c6-8717-eb3a27af2fb1@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907110850j3693b7a8p12be0b43c0faace8@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Michael<magic6435 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Simply testing that my validations are working for a model called
> Project.
>
> MODEL
> class Project < ActiveRecord::Base
> ?validates_presence_of :brief
> end
>
> SPEC
> require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper')
>
> describe Project do
> ?before(:each) do
> ? ?@project = Project.new(:title => "project title", :brief =>
> "project brief")
> ?end
>
> ?it "should create a new instance given valid attributes" do
> ? ?@project.should be_valid
> ?end
> end
>
> ERROR
> ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid in 'Project should create a new instance
> given valid attributes'
> Validation failed: Brief can't be blank
>
>
> POST
> How on earth can that be failing? its driving me nuts, i have a few
> other tests that check the exact same way(method taken from the Rspec
> book) so why all the sudden would it stop working on a new model. Blah
> thanks for any help.

The fact that it's raising an error suggests that something is trying
to save the Project. Otherwise you'd just get back something like
"expected valid? to be true". Since rspec-rails doesn't try to save
the record, my guess is that there is some other code introducing
itself. Either in the application code, a plugin, or perhaps an rspec
extension library that has its own be_valid matcher. Any of that
feasible?


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

From hayafirst at gmail.com  Sat Jul 11 13:00:38 2009
From: hayafirst at gmail.com (Yi Wen)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:00:38 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Validations are making me want to scream. help
	please
In-Reply-To: <cae3e5b6-842d-40c6-8717-eb3a27af2fb1@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>
References: <cae3e5b6-842d-40c6-8717-eb3a27af2fb1@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <EED7EB9D-1022-4665-B66B-40A37AA3A69F@gmail.com>

There is a validation error, which means you were trying to save the  
object somewhere. Check both your tests and code, to find out where.

On Jul 11, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Michael wrote:

> Simply testing that my validations are working for a model called
> Project.
>
> MODEL
> class Project < ActiveRecord::Base
>  validates_presence_of :brief
> end
>
> SPEC
> require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper')
>
> describe Project do
>  before(:each) do
>    @project = Project.new(:title => "project title", :brief =>
> "project brief")
>  end
>
>  it "should create a new instance given valid attributes" do
>    @project.should be_valid
>  end
> end
>
> ERROR
> ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid in 'Project should create a new instance
> given valid attributes'
> Validation failed: Brief can't be blank
>
>
> POST
> How on earth can that be failing? its driving me nuts, i have a few
> other tests that check the exact same way(method taken from the Rspec
> book) so why all the sudden would it stop working on a new model. Blah
> thanks for any help.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From chris at silhouettesolutions.net  Sat Jul 11 15:29:30 2009
From: chris at silhouettesolutions.net (Chris Sund)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] explanation of "describe" vs "context"...
Message-ID: <5b3073ed-2242-40be-8f49-0ee771e7985c@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>

Hey everyone,

This is a noob question. I'm not grasping the difference between
"describe" and "context" in my spec file. As an example, what's the
difference with this...

describe Game do
     context "starting up" do
it "should send a welcome message" do
        @messenger.should_receive(:puts).with("Welcome to
Mastermind!")
        @game.start(%w[r g y c])
      end



And this....

describe Game do
     describe "starting up" do
it "should send a welcome message" do
        @messenger.should_receive(:puts).with("Welcome to
Mastermind!")
        @game.start(%w[r g y c])
      end


Is this just preference, or are the serious differences?




From zach.dennis at gmail.com  Sat Jul 11 15:36:27 2009
From: zach.dennis at gmail.com (Zach Dennis)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:36:27 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] explanation of "describe" vs "context"...
In-Reply-To: <5b3073ed-2242-40be-8f49-0ee771e7985c@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
References: <5b3073ed-2242-40be-8f49-0ee771e7985c@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <85d99afe0907111236o6bb1b2a9ob7e7131a7acbef4b@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Chris
Sund<chris at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> This is a noob question. I'm not grasping the difference between
> "describe" and "context" in my spec file. As an example, what's the
> difference with this...
>
> describe Game do
> ? ? context "starting up" do
> it "should send a welcome message" do
> ? ? ? ?@messenger.should_receive(:puts).with("Welcome to
> Mastermind!")
> ? ? ? ?@game.start(%w[r g y c])
> ? ? ?end
>
>
>
> And this....
>
> describe Game do
> ? ? describe "starting up" do
> it "should send a welcome message" do
> ? ? ? ?@messenger.should_receive(:puts).with("Welcome to
> Mastermind!")
> ? ? ? ?@game.start(%w[r g y c])
> ? ? ?end
>
>
> Is this just preference, or are the serious differences?
>

There is no technical difference. context is aliased to describe.
However, you can use them in combination to write more expressive
specs.

For example:

describe Game do

   describe "#join_game" do
      context "when the game has not started"d o
         it "should allow a player to join"
     end

      context "when the game has started" do
         it "should not allow another player to join"
      end
  end

end





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



-- 
Zach Dennis
http://www.continuousthinking.com (personal)
http://www.mutuallyhuman.com (hire me)
http://ideafoundry.info/behavior-driven-development (first rate BDD training)
@zachdennis (twitter)

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Sat Jul 11 22:01:50 2009
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Robert Rouse)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:01:50 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] ZenTest, RSpec and Ruby 1.9.1
Message-ID: <0f5b0bc041bef766e1d543efd3e19173@ruby-forum.com>

Hello,

I thought maybe you guys could help. I'm trying to use RSpec along with
ZenTest.

However, all I seem to get back when trying to run tests is an
exception.

Is there a place I can find out what that exception is? I have autospec
set up to do the notifications through growl. The growl output only
tells me there was an exception.

I'd like to get it working.

Any ideas?
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From ben at benmabey.com  Sun Jul 12 02:18:39 2009
From: ben at benmabey.com (Ben Mabey)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:18:39 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] ZenTest, RSpec and Ruby 1.9.1
In-Reply-To: <0f5b0bc041bef766e1d543efd3e19173@ruby-forum.com>
References: <0f5b0bc041bef766e1d543efd3e19173@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <4A59803F.9040901@benmabey.com>

Robert Rouse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I thought maybe you guys could help. I'm trying to use RSpec along with
> ZenTest.
>
> However, all I seem to get back when trying to run tests is an
> exception.
>
> Is there a place I can find out what that exception is? I have autospec
> set up to do the notifications through growl. The growl output only
> tells me there was an exception.
>
> I'd like to get it working.
>
> Any ideas?
>   


The output should be in the terminal window that you started autotest 
in.... What are you seeing exactly?  Please post your output.  Do you 
have the latest ZenTest and RSpec gems?  Also, are you using the 
"autospec" command that comes with RSpec?

-Ben

From scott at railsnewbie.com  Sun Jul 12 15:48:06 2009
From: scott at railsnewbie.com (Scott Taylor)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:48:06 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] explanation of "describe" vs "context"...
In-Reply-To: <5b3073ed-2242-40be-8f49-0ee771e7985c@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
References: <5b3073ed-2242-40be-8f49-0ee771e7985c@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <4A5A3DF6.2090707@railsnewbie.com>

Chris Sund wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> This is a noob question. I'm not grasping the difference between
> "describe" and "context" in my spec file. As an example, what's the
> difference with this...
>
> describe Game do
>      context "starting up" do
> it "should send a welcome message" do
>         @messenger.should_receive(:puts).with("Welcome to
> Mastermind!")
>         @game.start(%w[r g y c])
>       end
>
>
>
> And this....
>
> describe Game do
>      describe "starting up" do
> it "should send a welcome message" do
>         @messenger.should_receive(:puts).with("Welcome to
> Mastermind!")
>         @game.start(%w[r g y c])
>       end
>
>
> Is this just preference, or are the serious differences?
>
>
>   
They are aliased, so there is no functional difference:

http://gist.github.com/ded8be0839e77c30afe1

Scott


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


From chris at silhouettesolutions.net  Sun Jul 12 16:51:01 2009
From: chris at silhouettesolutions.net (internetchris)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] explanation of "describe" vs "context"...
In-Reply-To: <4A5A3DF6.2090707@railsnewbie.com>
References: <5b3073ed-2242-40be-8f49-0ee771e7985c@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
	<4A5A3DF6.2090707@railsnewbie.com>
Message-ID: <7787e6b4-68c0-42b0-af19-1b9806c3ea7f@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>

Thanks, that helps me understand better.

On Jul 12, 1:48?pm, Scott Taylor <sc... at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
> Chris Sund wrote:
> > Hey everyone,
>
> > This is a noob question. I'm not grasping the difference between
> > "describe" and "context" in my spec file. As an example, what's the
> > difference with this...
>
> > describe Game do
> > ? ? ?context "starting up" do
> > it "should send a welcome message" do
> > ? ? ? ? @messenger.should_receive(:puts).with("Welcome to
> > Mastermind!")
> > ? ? ? ? @game.start(%w[r g y c])
> > ? ? ? end
>
> > And this....
>
> > describe Game do
> > ? ? ?describe "starting up" do
> > it "should send a welcome message" do
> > ? ? ? ? @messenger.should_receive(:puts).with("Welcome to
> > Mastermind!")
> > ? ? ? ? @game.start(%w[r g y c])
> > ? ? ? end
>
> > Is this just preference, or are the serious differences?
>
> They are aliased, so there is no functional difference:
>
> http://gist.github.com/ded8be0839e77c30afe1
>
> Scott
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From scott at railsnewbie.com  Mon Jul 13 12:58:20 2009
From: scott at railsnewbie.com (Scott Taylor)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:58:20 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Stubbing out Time correctly
In-Reply-To: <8d18f1f80907130909h2f7f3aefgb5a03ba21c2ce849@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d18f1f80907130909h2f7f3aefgb5a03ba21c2ce849@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5CDF941C-3FC3-4DC4-8709-638F8FDBA539@railsnewbie.com>


On Jul 13, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Adam Anderson wrote:

> I can't seem to find a good way to do this. If I stub out Time.now  
> in one of my specs but need to return it to its original  
> functionality then can I remove the stub?
>
> So I'd like to say something like:
> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(foo_time)
> Time.now # => foo_time
> Time.unstub!(:now)
> Time.now # => whatever time it actually is


Capture it before you stub it:

real_now= Time.now

Time.stub!(:now).and_return a_later_time

Time.stub!(:now).and_return real_now

>
> Is this possible? I noticed $rspec_mocks.reset_all, but obviously I  
> don't want everything to go away, just this one stub.
>
>
> -Adam
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul 13 14:12:45 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:12:45 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Stubbing out Time correctly
In-Reply-To: <8AFC496E-83EA-4700-8581-E95E365B054F@railsnewbie.com>
References: <8d18f1f80907130909h2f7f3aefgb5a03ba21c2ce849@mail.gmail.com>
	<5CDF941C-3FC3-4DC4-8709-638F8FDBA539@railsnewbie.com>
	<8d18f1f80907131032v7a0bcaddw573be5777cf4dd28@mail.gmail.com>
	<92D9F3B1-437D-45A7-93F2-029BBC56C596@railsnewbie.com>
	<8AFC496E-83EA-4700-8581-E95E365B054F@railsnewbie.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907131112y336cea53j1893404b4e83ecb7@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Scott Taylor<scott at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:
>
> On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Adam Anderson wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply, Scott.
>
> What you describe is what is currently being done.
>
> now = Time.now
> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(foo_time)
> do_stuff
> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(now)
>
> However, this is not returning the actual time it is only returning the time
> set on the first line. I need Time.now to return to its original behavior
> (i.e., returning the current, actual time).
>
> Well, every time you create a stub, rspec aliased the method before it
> destroys it:
> http://gist.github.com/1ed96143092a02cb727b
> It's ugly, but it will work.
>
> Here's another solution, without needing to resort to the library:
> http://gist.github.com/e573cb79073805a632c9
> Of course, this solution only works if you don't have other stubs on Time.

It also only works as long as that method keeps its name :) That
method is explicitly :nodoc:'d which indicates that it is an internal
method and therefore subject to change. Not saying I plan to change
it, just that of now it is not a public API.

That said, this thread suggests that we need a public API for
resetting partial stubs like this. I'm thinking something more
intention revealing like tear_down_rspec_stubs or something like that.
Thoughts? Recommendations?

> Scott
>
>
> You might also want to check out this library:
> http://github.com/notahat/time_travel/tree/master
> Scott
>
>
> -Adam
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Scott Taylor <scott at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Adam Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> I can't seem to find a good way to do this. If I stub out Time.now in one
>>> of my specs but need to return it to its original functionality then can I
>>> remove the stub?
>>>
>>> So I'd like to say something like:
>>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(foo_time)
>>> Time.now # => foo_time
>>> Time.unstub!(:now)
>>> Time.now # => whatever time it actually is
>>
>>
>> Capture it before you stub it:
>>
>> real_now= Time.now
>>
>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return a_later_time
>>
>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return real_now
>>
>>>
>>> Is this possible? I noticed $rspec_mocks.reset_all, but obviously I don't
>>> want everything to go away, just this one stub.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Adam
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 scott at railsnewbie.com  Mon Jul 13 14:15:35 2009
From: scott at railsnewbie.com (Scott Taylor)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:15:35 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Stubbing out Time correctly
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907131112y336cea53j1893404b4e83ecb7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d18f1f80907130909h2f7f3aefgb5a03ba21c2ce849@mail.gmail.com>
	<5CDF941C-3FC3-4DC4-8709-638F8FDBA539@railsnewbie.com>
	<8d18f1f80907131032v7a0bcaddw573be5777cf4dd28@mail.gmail.com>
	<92D9F3B1-437D-45A7-93F2-029BBC56C596@railsnewbie.com>
	<8AFC496E-83EA-4700-8581-E95E365B054F@railsnewbie.com>
	<57c63afe0907131112y336cea53j1893404b4e83ecb7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <978F1EF0-C1BA-4979-949F-0B8CE4B2C314@railsnewbie.com>


On Jul 13, 2009, at 2:12 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Scott Taylor<scott at railsnewbie.com>  
> wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Adam Anderson wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the reply, Scott.
>>
>> What you describe is what is currently being done.
>>
>> now = Time.now
>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(foo_time)
>> do_stuff
>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(now)
>>
>> However, this is not returning the actual time it is only returning  
>> the time
>> set on the first line. I need Time.now to return to its original  
>> behavior
>> (i.e., returning the current, actual time).
>>
>> Well, every time you create a stub, rspec aliased the method before  
>> it
>> destroys it:
>> http://gist.github.com/1ed96143092a02cb727b
>> It's ugly, but it will work.
>>
>> Here's another solution, without needing to resort to the library:
>> http://gist.github.com/e573cb79073805a632c9
>> Of course, this solution only works if you don't have other stubs  
>> on Time.
>
> It also only works as long as that method keeps its name :) That
> method is explicitly :nodoc:'d which indicates that it is an internal
> method and therefore subject to change. Not saying I plan to change
> it, just that of now it is not a public API.
>
> That said, this thread suggests that we need a public API for
> resetting partial stubs like this. I'm thinking something more
> intention revealing like tear_down_rspec_stubs or something like that.
> Thoughts? Recommendations?

I'd like unstub! to match stub!.

Might also consider renaming rspec_reset, or making it part of the  
public api.

Scott


>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> You might also want to check out this library:
>> http://github.com/notahat/time_travel/tree/master
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Scott Taylor  
>> <scott at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Adam Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can't seem to find a good way to do this. If I stub out  
>>>> Time.now in one
>>>> of my specs but need to return it to its original functionality  
>>>> then can I
>>>> remove the stub?
>>>>
>>>> So I'd like to say something like:
>>>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(foo_time)
>>>> Time.now # => foo_time
>>>> Time.unstub!(:now)
>>>> Time.now # => whatever time it actually is
>>>
>>>
>>> Capture it before you stub it:
>>>
>>> real_now= Time.now
>>>
>>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return a_later_time
>>>
>>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return real_now
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is this possible? I noticed $rspec_mocks.reset_all, but obviously  
>>>> I don't
>>>> want everything to go away, just this one stub.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Adam
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 scott at railsnewbie.com  Mon Jul 13 14:17:26 2009
From: scott at railsnewbie.com (Scott Taylor)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:17:26 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Stubbing out Time correctly
In-Reply-To: <978F1EF0-C1BA-4979-949F-0B8CE4B2C314@railsnewbie.com>
References: <8d18f1f80907130909h2f7f3aefgb5a03ba21c2ce849@mail.gmail.com>
	<5CDF941C-3FC3-4DC4-8709-638F8FDBA539@railsnewbie.com>
	<8d18f1f80907131032v7a0bcaddw573be5777cf4dd28@mail.gmail.com>
	<92D9F3B1-437D-45A7-93F2-029BBC56C596@railsnewbie.com>
	<8AFC496E-83EA-4700-8581-E95E365B054F@railsnewbie.com>
	<57c63afe0907131112y336cea53j1893404b4e83ecb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<978F1EF0-C1BA-4979-949F-0B8CE4B2C314@railsnewbie.com>
Message-ID: <1850DB62-3AAD-45E4-A36D-35AB98BD2AED@railsnewbie.com>


On Jul 13, 2009, at 2:15 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:

>
> On Jul 13, 2009, at 2:12 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Scott  
>> Taylor<scott at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Adam Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the reply, Scott.
>>>
>>> What you describe is what is currently being done.
>>>
>>> now = Time.now
>>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(foo_time)
>>> do_stuff
>>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(now)
>>>
>>> However, this is not returning the actual time it is only  
>>> returning the time
>>> set on the first line. I need Time.now to return to its original  
>>> behavior
>>> (i.e., returning the current, actual time).
>>>
>>> Well, every time you create a stub, rspec aliased the method  
>>> before it
>>> destroys it:
>>> http://gist.github.com/1ed96143092a02cb727b
>>> It's ugly, but it will work.
>>>
>>> Here's another solution, without needing to resort to the library:
>>> http://gist.github.com/e573cb79073805a632c9
>>> Of course, this solution only works if you don't have other stubs  
>>> on Time.
>>
>> It also only works as long as that method keeps its name :) That
>> method is explicitly :nodoc:'d which indicates that it is an internal
>> method and therefore subject to change. Not saying I plan to change
>> it, just that of now it is not a public API.
>>
>> That said, this thread suggests that we need a public API for
>> resetting partial stubs like this. I'm thinking something more
>> intention revealing like tear_down_rspec_stubs or something like  
>> that.
>> Thoughts? Recommendations?
>
> I'd like unstub! to match stub!.
>
> Might also consider renaming rspec_reset, or making it part of the  
> public api.


BTW, I'd also be willing to contribute a patch for unstub!, if it is  
so desired.

Scott


>
> Scott
>
>
>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>> You might also want to check out this library:
>>> http://github.com/notahat/time_travel/tree/master
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>> -Adam
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Scott Taylor  
>>> <scott at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Adam Anderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I can't seem to find a good way to do this. If I stub out  
>>>>> Time.now in one
>>>>> of my specs but need to return it to its original functionality  
>>>>> then can I
>>>>> remove the stub?
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'd like to say something like:
>>>>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(foo_time)
>>>>> Time.now # => foo_time
>>>>> Time.unstub!(:now)
>>>>> Time.now # => whatever time it actually is
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Capture it before you stub it:
>>>>
>>>> real_now= Time.now
>>>>
>>>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return a_later_time
>>>>
>>>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return real_now
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this possible? I noticed $rspec_mocks.reset_all, but  
>>>>> obviously I don't
>>>>> want everything to go away, just this one stub.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adam
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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 matt at mattwynne.net  Mon Jul 13 14:20:23 2009
From: matt at mattwynne.net (Matt Wynne)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:20:23 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Stubbing out Time correctly
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907131112y336cea53j1893404b4e83ecb7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d18f1f80907130909h2f7f3aefgb5a03ba21c2ce849@mail.gmail.com>
	<5CDF941C-3FC3-4DC4-8709-638F8FDBA539@railsnewbie.com>
	<8d18f1f80907131032v7a0bcaddw573be5777cf4dd28@mail.gmail.com>
	<92D9F3B1-437D-45A7-93F2-029BBC56C596@railsnewbie.com>
	<8AFC496E-83EA-4700-8581-E95E365B054F@railsnewbie.com>
	<57c63afe0907131112y336cea53j1893404b4e83ecb7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1A480870-79C5-4289-8BD1-B257065A6741@mattwynne.net>


On 13 Jul 2009, at 19:12, David Chelimsky wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Scott Taylor<scott at railsnewbie.com>  
> wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Adam Anderson wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the reply, Scott.
>>
>> What you describe is what is currently being done.
>>
>> now = Time.now
>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(foo_time)
>> do_stuff
>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(now)
>>
>> However, this is not returning the actual time it is only returning  
>> the time
>> set on the first line. I need Time.now to return to its original  
>> behavior
>> (i.e., returning the current, actual time).
>>
>> Well, every time you create a stub, rspec aliased the method before  
>> it
>> destroys it:
>> http://gist.github.com/1ed96143092a02cb727b
>> It's ugly, but it will work.
>>
>> Here's another solution, without needing to resort to the library:
>> http://gist.github.com/e573cb79073805a632c9
>> Of course, this solution only works if you don't have other stubs  
>> on Time.
>
> It also only works as long as that method keeps its name :) That
> method is explicitly :nodoc:'d which indicates that it is an internal
> method and therefore subject to change. Not saying I plan to change
> it, just that of now it is not a public API.
>
> That said, this thread suggests that we need a public API for
> resetting partial stubs like this. I'm thinking something more
> intention revealing like tear_down_rspec_stubs or something like that.
> Thoughts? Recommendations?

Would it be possible to get a handle to the individual stub and tear  
that down?

stub = Time.stub!(:now).and_return(foo_time)
# do stuff
stub.remove

Allowing you to do stuff like

with_stubbed_time(foo_time) do
   # do stuff
end



>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> You might also want to check out this library:
>> http://github.com/notahat/time_travel/tree/master
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Scott Taylor  
>> <scott at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Adam Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can't seem to find a good way to do this. If I stub out  
>>>> Time.now in one
>>>> of my specs but need to return it to its original functionality  
>>>> then can I
>>>> remove the stub?
>>>>
>>>> So I'd like to say something like:
>>>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(foo_time)
>>>> Time.now # => foo_time
>>>> Time.unstub!(:now)
>>>> Time.now # => whatever time it actually is
>>>
>>>
>>> Capture it before you stub it:
>>>
>>> real_now= Time.now
>>>
>>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return a_later_time
>>>
>>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return real_now
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is this possible? I noticed $rspec_mocks.reset_all, but obviously  
>>>> I don't
>>>> want everything to go away, just this one stub.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Adam
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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

cheers,
Matt Wynne

http://mattwynne.net
+447974 430184


From matt at mattwynne.net  Mon Jul 13 14:21:40 2009
From: matt at mattwynne.net (Matt Wynne)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:21:40 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Stubbing out Time correctly
In-Reply-To: <1850DB62-3AAD-45E4-A36D-35AB98BD2AED@railsnewbie.com>
References: <8d18f1f80907130909h2f7f3aefgb5a03ba21c2ce849@mail.gmail.com>
	<5CDF941C-3FC3-4DC4-8709-638F8FDBA539@railsnewbie.com>
	<8d18f1f80907131032v7a0bcaddw573be5777cf4dd28@mail.gmail.com>
	<92D9F3B1-437D-45A7-93F2-029BBC56C596@railsnewbie.com>
	<8AFC496E-83EA-4700-8581-E95E365B054F@railsnewbie.com>
	<57c63afe0907131112y336cea53j1893404b4e83ecb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<978F1EF0-C1BA-4979-949F-0B8CE4B2C314@railsnewbie.com>
	<1850DB62-3AAD-45E4-A36D-35AB98BD2AED@railsnewbie.com>
Message-ID: <CB803DDF-7266-49B4-9DA4-692C4223581D@mattwynne.net>


On 13 Jul 2009, at 19:17, Scott Taylor wrote:

>
> On Jul 13, 2009, at 2:15 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 2:12 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Scott  
>>> Taylor<scott at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Adam Anderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the reply, Scott.
>>>>
>>>> What you describe is what is currently being done.
>>>>
>>>> now = Time.now
>>>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(foo_time)
>>>> do_stuff
>>>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(now)
>>>>
>>>> However, this is not returning the actual time it is only  
>>>> returning the time
>>>> set on the first line. I need Time.now to return to its original  
>>>> behavior
>>>> (i.e., returning the current, actual time).
>>>>
>>>> Well, every time you create a stub, rspec aliased the method  
>>>> before it
>>>> destroys it:
>>>> http://gist.github.com/1ed96143092a02cb727b
>>>> It's ugly, but it will work.
>>>>
>>>> Here's another solution, without needing to resort to the library:
>>>> http://gist.github.com/e573cb79073805a632c9
>>>> Of course, this solution only works if you don't have other stubs  
>>>> on Time.
>>>
>>> It also only works as long as that method keeps its name :) That
>>> method is explicitly :nodoc:'d which indicates that it is an  
>>> internal
>>> method and therefore subject to change. Not saying I plan to change
>>> it, just that of now it is not a public API.
>>>
>>> That said, this thread suggests that we need a public API for
>>> resetting partial stubs like this. I'm thinking something more
>>> intention revealing like tear_down_rspec_stubs or something like  
>>> that.
>>> Thoughts? Recommendations?
>>
>> I'd like unstub! to match stub!.
>>
>> Might also consider renaming rspec_reset, or making it part of the  
>> public api.
>
>
> BTW, I'd also be willing to contribute a patch for unstub!, if it is  
> so desired.

Given that we can stack up stubs and should_receive, is there a danger  
it could get confusing as to exactly which stub you want to unstub?

cheers,
Matt Wynne

http://mattwynne.net
+447974 430184


From lists at ruby-forum.com  Tue Jul 14 05:49:16 2009
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Zhenning Guan)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:49:16 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] why should_receive doesn't work, but stub does.
Message-ID: <195840a2d9c60c273a709cbfda4ee892@ruby-forum.com>


  before(:each) do
     @myinstance = GetHtml.new
  end



  it "should be a Hyricot" do
    hy = open('test.html') {|f| Hpricot f}
    @myinstance.should_receive(:find_html).with("file:///test_url").and_return(hy)

  end
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  it "should be a Hyricot" do
    hy = open('test.html') {|f| Hpricot f}
    @myinstance.stub!(:find_html).with("file:///test_url").and_return(hy)

  end
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


expected ................ once, but received it 0 times


I have a find_html method in my GetHtml class, but why can't
should_receive run successfuly? but use stub!, it can.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jul 14 06:35:44 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:35:44 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] why should_receive doesn't work, but stub does.
In-Reply-To: <195840a2d9c60c273a709cbfda4ee892@ruby-forum.com>
References: <195840a2d9c60c273a709cbfda4ee892@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907140335s3678b018vbb7b217f5f1f994a@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Zhenning Guan<lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:
> ?before(:each) do
> ? ? @myinstance = GetHtml.new
> ?end
>
> ?it "should be a Hyricot" do
> ? ?hy = open('test.html') {|f| Hpricot f}
> ? ?@myinstance.should_receive(:find_html).with("file:///test_url").and_return(hy)
>
> ?end
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ?it "should be a Hyricot" do
> ? ?hy = open('test.html') {|f| Hpricot f}
> ? ?@myinstance.stub!(:find_html).with("file:///test_url").and_return(hy)
>
> ?end
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> expected ................ once, but received it 0 times
>
> I have a find_html method in my GetHtml class, but why can't
> should_receive run successfuly? but use stub!, it can.

Both stub! and should_receive are intended to run *before* the event
in an example. In both examples, nothing happens after they are run.
The reason that the stub! appears to be running successfully is that
there are no expectations being set anywhere. In essence, that example
doesn't actually test anything

The should_receive example expects a call to find_html *after* the
expectation is set. That never happens, so it fails.

In neither case is there any interaction with the instance of GetHtml
other than to set the stub/expectation on it. What is it that you're
trying to specify?

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Tue Jul 14 22:59:22 2009
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Zhenning Guan)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 04:59:22 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] why should_receive failure?
Message-ID: <0944ce655a8c7a9e821169d771029661@ruby-forum.com>


class PeepCode

  def awesome
    "awesome"
  end

end

describe PeepCode do

 it "should fuck" do
   PeepCode.new.should_receive(:awesome).and_return("awesome")
 end
end


-----------------------------------------
Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in 'PeepCode should fuck'
#<PeepCode:0xb7aa3bbc> expected :awesome with (any args) once, but
received it 0 times
./simple_spec.rb:13:

Finished in 0.006159 seconds

1 example, 1 failure

------------------------------------------


what's wrong with my code?
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From jim at saturnflyer.com  Tue Jul 14 23:36:54 2009
From: jim at saturnflyer.com (Jim Gay)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:36:54 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] why should_receive failure?
In-Reply-To: <0944ce655a8c7a9e821169d771029661@ruby-forum.com>
References: <0944ce655a8c7a9e821169d771029661@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <1035E6E6-ED12-4655-9EC6-3A49E3801BD8@saturnflyer.com>

On Jul 14, 2009, at 10:59 PM, Zhenning Guan wrote:

>
> class PeepCode
>
> def awesome
>   "awesome"
> end
>
> end
>
> describe PeepCode do
>
> it "should fuck" do
peep = PeepCode.new
peep.should_receive(:awesome).and_return("awesome")
peep.awesome #this completes the expectation above
> #  PeepCode.new.should_receive(:awesome).and_return("awesome")
> end
> end
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in 'PeepCode should fuck'
> #<PeepCode:0xb7aa3bbc> expected :awesome with (any args) once, but
> received it 0 times
> ./simple_spec.rb:13:
>
> Finished in 0.006159 seconds
>
> 1 example, 1 failure
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
>
> what's wrong with my code?

I think you misunderstand "should_receive". It doesn't actually call  
the method you're describing; it creates an expectation. So your spec  
says that something should happen, and then you never called the  
method, so it "received it 0 times"

This is a bad example though.

Your code seems to say that this is the spec:

describe PeepCode, "awesome" do
  it "should return the string 'awesome'" do
    PeepCode.new.awesome.should == 'awesome'
  end
end

"should_receive" says that in the test which is being run, the object  
should receive that method call... for example:

class PeepCode
  def awesome
    totally_rad
  end
  def totally_rad
    "righteous"
  end
end

and your spec:

describe PeepCode, "awesome" do
  it "should call the totally_rad method" do
    peep = PeepCode.new
    peep.should_receive(:totally_rad).and_return(...whatever...)
    peep.awesome
  end
  it "should return the string 'righteous'" do
    PeepCode.new.awesome.should == 'righteous'
  end
end

I haven't tried any of that, but it should work.


Jim Gay
http://www.saturnflyer.com

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jul 14 23:37:20 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:37:20 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] why should_receive failure?
In-Reply-To: <0944ce655a8c7a9e821169d771029661@ruby-forum.com>
References: <0944ce655a8c7a9e821169d771029661@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907142037l649a6200o1993006cde2afde@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Zhenning Guan<lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:
>
> class PeepCode
> ?def awesome
> ? ?"awesome"
> ?end
> end
>
> describe PeepCode do
> ?it "should fuck" do
> ? PeepCode.new.should_receive(:awesome).and_return("awesome")
> ?end
> end
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in 'PeepCode should fuck'
> #<PeepCode:0xb7aa3bbc> expected :awesome with (any args) once, but
> received it 0 times
> ./simple_spec.rb:13:
>
> Finished in 0.006159 seconds
>
> 1 example, 1 failure
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
>
> what's wrong with my code?

You asked a similar question yesterday and I tried to explain. Did you
not receive my response?

should_receive sets an expectation that a subsequent event will cause
the PeepCode object to receive the :awesome message. There is no code
after that expectation is set, so the message is never received, and
the expectation fails. That's exactly what the error message is
telling you: <PeepCode:0xb7aa3bbc> expected :awesome with (any args)
once, but received it 0 times.

If you're trying to specify that the PeepCode object should return
"awesome" when you call the awesome() method, then the example should
look like this:

describe PeepCode, "#awesome" do
  it "should return 'awesome'" do
    peepcode = PeepCode.new
    peepcode.awesome.should == "awesome"
  end
end

There's no need to set a message expectation (e.g. mock) here.

HTH,
David

ps - I think it's OK to say "fuck" on this list, if that's what you
really mean, but I don't really understand what you're getting at with
the expectation that PeepCode should fuck. Perhaps you might consider
being a bit more careful about the examples you send.

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 15 00:15:39 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:15:39 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Stubbing out Time correctly
In-Reply-To: <1850DB62-3AAD-45E4-A36D-35AB98BD2AED@railsnewbie.com>
References: <8d18f1f80907130909h2f7f3aefgb5a03ba21c2ce849@mail.gmail.com>
	<5CDF941C-3FC3-4DC4-8709-638F8FDBA539@railsnewbie.com>
	<8d18f1f80907131032v7a0bcaddw573be5777cf4dd28@mail.gmail.com>
	<92D9F3B1-437D-45A7-93F2-029BBC56C596@railsnewbie.com>
	<8AFC496E-83EA-4700-8581-E95E365B054F@railsnewbie.com>
	<57c63afe0907131112y336cea53j1893404b4e83ecb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<978F1EF0-C1BA-4979-949F-0B8CE4B2C314@railsnewbie.com>
	<1850DB62-3AAD-45E4-A36D-35AB98BD2AED@railsnewbie.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907142115s29daeb52t94e9a37322da8464@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Scott Taylor<scott at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 13, 2009, at 2:15 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 2:12 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Scott Taylor<scott at railsnewbie.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Scott Taylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Adam Anderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the reply, Scott.
>>>>
>>>> What you describe is what is currently being done.
>>>>
>>>> now = Time.now
>>>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(foo_time)
>>>> do_stuff
>>>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(now)
>>>>
>>>> However, this is not returning the actual time it is only returning the
>>>> time
>>>> set on the first line. I need Time.now to return to its original
>>>> behavior
>>>> (i.e., returning the current, actual time).
>>>>
>>>> Well, every time you create a stub, rspec aliased the method before it
>>>> destroys it:
>>>> http://gist.github.com/1ed96143092a02cb727b
>>>> It's ugly, but it will work.
>>>>
>>>> Here's another solution, without needing to resort to the library:
>>>> http://gist.github.com/e573cb79073805a632c9
>>>> Of course, this solution only works if you don't have other stubs on
>>>> Time.
>>>
>>> It also only works as long as that method keeps its name :) That
>>> method is explicitly :nodoc:'d which indicates that it is an internal
>>> method and therefore subject to change. Not saying I plan to change
>>> it, just that of now it is not a public API.
>>>
>>> That said, this thread suggests that we need a public API for
>>> resetting partial stubs like this. I'm thinking something more
>>> intention revealing like tear_down_rspec_stubs or something like that.
>>> Thoughts? Recommendations?
>>
>> I'd like unstub! to match stub!.
>>
>> Might also consider renaming rspec_reset, or making it part of the public
>> api.
>
>
> BTW, I'd also be willing to contribute a patch for unstub!, if it is so
> desired.

FYI - Scott submitted this patch and I just merged it, so you should
now be able to unstub! Time.now mid-example.

http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/commit/281dc54d4556fed35b62e2f1b86a13e443dcd6e8

Cheers (and thanks, Scott!),
David


>
> Scott
>
>
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You might also want to check out this library:
>>>> http://github.com/notahat/time_travel/tree/master
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Adam
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Scott Taylor <scott at railsnewbie.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 13, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Adam Anderson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't seem to find a good way to do this. If I stub out Time.now in
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> of my specs but need to return it to its original functionality then
>>>>>> can I
>>>>>> remove the stub?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I'd like to say something like:
>>>>>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(foo_time)
>>>>>> Time.now # => foo_time
>>>>>> Time.unstub!(:now)
>>>>>> Time.now # => whatever time it actually is
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Capture it before you stub it:
>>>>>
>>>>> real_now= Time.now
>>>>>
>>>>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return a_later_time
>>>>>
>>>>> Time.stub!(:now).and_return real_now
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this possible? I noticed $rspec_mocks.reset_all, but obviously I
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> want everything to go away, just this one stub.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Adam
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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 julian at leviston.net  Tue Jul 14 23:32:05 2009
From: julian at leviston.net (Julian Leviston)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:32:05 +1000
Subject: [rspec-users] why should_receive failure?
In-Reply-To: <0944ce655a8c7a9e821169d771029661@ruby-forum.com>
References: <0944ce655a8c7a9e821169d771029661@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <6741D6E2-B052-412F-BE78-27547AD37E0D@leviston.net>

because
"Peepcode.new"
doesn't receive the "awesome" message.

like it says...

Julian.

On 15/07/2009, at 12:59 PM, Zhenning Guan wrote:

>
> class PeepCode
>
>  def awesome
>    "awesome"
>  end
>
> end
>
> describe PeepCode do
>
> it "should fuck" do
>   PeepCode.new.should_receive(:awesome).and_return("awesome")
> end
> end
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in 'PeepCode should fuck'
> #<PeepCode:0xb7aa3bbc> expected :awesome with (any args) once, but
> received it 0 times
> ./simple_spec.rb:13:
>
> Finished in 0.006159 seconds
>
> 1 example, 1 failure
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
>
> what's wrong with my code?
> -- 
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From felipero.maillist at gmail.com  Wed Jul 15 15:57:57 2009
From: felipero.maillist at gmail.com (Felipe Rodrigues 02)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] Problems installing the rspec and rspec-rails gems
In-Reply-To: <8642DBE8-C751-4785-B620-EEED4638212E@gmail.com>
References: <1be6e98e959cd635453c4d2b3ad74376@ruby-forum.com>
	<2c7e61990904041715p54aaabffrc367d1eb4e1e7840@mail.gmail.com>
	<09ff70a32694aea73a8a9884f92eb6cb@ruby-forum.com>
	<8642DBE8-C751-4785-B620-EEED4638212E@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <24504741.post@talk.nabble.com>


I just trying to use cucumber in a rails project following the RSpec book
from Pragmatic Programmers, but I am seeing the same error.

The --no-rdoc didn't worked.
Don't know where else to look for a solution. Any ideas on this one?


David Chelimsky-2 wrote:
> 
> Hey Mike,
> 
> Looks like the problem is installing the rdoc. Try installing with the  
> --no-rdoc option.
> 
> Cheers,
> David
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Apr 4, 2009, at 7:52 PM, Mike Williams <lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:
> 
>> Pat Maddox wrote:
>>> The rspec gem did install successfully, not sure what those doc
>>> warnings are.  Did you install rspec-rails as well?
>>>
>>> Pat
>>
>>
>> I get the same output with rspec-rails when I try to install it.
>>
>> When I try to run cucumber feature -n I get:
>>
>> Missing these required gems:
>>  rpsec  >= 1.2.2
>>  rpsec-rails  >= 1.2.2
>>
>> You're running:
>>  ruby 1.8.6.114 at
>> /System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/Versions/1.8/usr/bin/ruby
>>  rubygems 1.3.1 at /Users/mike/.gem/ruby/1.8, /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8,
>> /System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/Versions/1.8/usr/lib/ruby/ 
>> gems/1.8
>> -- 
>> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.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
> 
> 


-----
Felipe Rodrigues
http://www.fratech.net
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Problems-installing-the-rspec-and-rspec-rails-gems-tp22889148p24504741.html
Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


From felipero.maillist at gmail.com  Wed Jul 15 16:25:26 2009
From: felipero.maillist at gmail.com (Felipe Rodrigues 02)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] Cucumber + Rspec problem: Missing these required gems:
Message-ID: <24505136.post@talk.nabble.com>


Hi all,

I'm stuck with this error. I've just created a rails project and installed
rspec, rspec-rails, cucumber and webrat as gems. So put in my environment.rb
the following:

config.gem 'rspec-rails', :lib => false
config.gem 'rspec', :lib => false
config.gem 'cucumber'
config.gem 'webrat'

Then I shot in my shell

script/generate rspec

followed by 

script/generate cucumber

Basically following this tutorial:
http://www.ultrasaurus.com/sarahblog/2008/12/rails-2-day-3-behavior-driven-development/

So, I create a tasks_list.feature inside my features directory. Also a
tasks_list_steps.rb on my features/steps_definitions directory.

When I run "script/cucumber features" or "rake features" or even "cucumber
features" I get the following:
============================================
Missing these required gems:
rspec  >= 1.2.6
  rspec-rails  >= 1.2.6

You're running:
ruby 1.8.7.72 at /usr/bin/ruby1.8
rubygems 1.3.4 at /home/felipe/.gem/ruby/1.8, /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8

Run `rake gems:install` to install the missing gems.
======================================================

Any ideas about how fix that?

Thanks,

Felipe

-----
Felipe Rodrigues
http://www.fratech.net
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Cucumber-%2B-Rspec-problem%3A-Missing-these-required-gems%3A-tp24505136p24505136.html
Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


From felipero.maillist at gmail.com  Wed Jul 15 17:31:12 2009
From: felipero.maillist at gmail.com (Felipe Rodrigues 02)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] Cucumber + Rspec problem: Missing these required
 gems:
In-Reply-To: <24505136.post@talk.nabble.com>
References: <24505136.post@talk.nabble.com>
Message-ID: <24506119.post@talk.nabble.com>


Looks like this problem only happens in the rails edge.



Felipe Rodrigues 02 wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm stuck with this error. I've just created a rails project and installed
> rspec, rspec-rails, cucumber and webrat as gems. So put in my
> environment.rb the following:
> 
> config.gem 'rspec-rails', :lib => false
> config.gem 'rspec', :lib => false
> config.gem 'cucumber'
> config.gem 'webrat'
> 
> Then I shot in my shell
> 
> script/generate rspec
> 
> followed by 
> 
> script/generate cucumber
> 
> Basically following this tutorial:
> http://www.ultrasaurus.com/sarahblog/2008/12/rails-2-day-3-behavior-driven-development/
> 
> So, I create a tasks_list.feature inside my features directory. Also a
> tasks_list_steps.rb on my features/steps_definitions directory.
> 
> When I run "script/cucumber features" or "rake features" or even "cucumber
> features" I get the following:
> ============================================
> Missing these required gems:
> rspec  >= 1.2.6
>   rspec-rails  >= 1.2.6
> 
> You're running:
> ruby 1.8.7.72 at /usr/bin/ruby1.8
> rubygems 1.3.4 at /home/felipe/.gem/ruby/1.8, /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8
> 
> Run `rake gems:install` to install the missing gems.
> ======================================================
> 
> Any ideas about how fix that?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Felipe
> 


-----
Felipe Rodrigues
http://www.fratech.net
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Cucumber-%2B-Rspec-problem%3A-Missing-these-required-gems%3A-tp24505136p24506119.html
Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


From leogodin217 at gmail.com  Wed Jul 15 17:29:29 2009
From: leogodin217 at gmail.com (Leo)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] testing controller instance variables
Message-ID: <d221bd70-8a9b-435f-9d18-b654bd6c615d@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>

HI All,
I have a controller with the following in it:

  def index
    @purchase_requests = PurchaseRequest.find(:all)
    @num_found = @purchase_requests.size
  end


I want to test that @num_found is getting the number of purchase
requests.

This is what I've tried:

  it "should count the number of purchase requests found" do
    @purchase_requests.stub!(:size).and_return 3
    @num_found.should_equal(3)
    get :index
  end

However, I Get This Error:


NoMethodError in 'PurchaseRequestsController Get index should count
the number of purchase requests found'
You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
The error occurred while evaluating nil.should_equal
./spec/controllers/purchase_requests_controller_spec.rb:21:

It seems that rspec wants me to stub the instance variable.  If I do
that then I don't think I'd actually be testing anything because I'd
create the stub in the test and verify that the stub I created is
there.  I want to make sure that the test will fail if I delete the
line in the actual controller or change the name.  Can someone show me
how to do this?
thanks in advance.
Leo

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 15 18:21:38 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:21:38 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Should deleting code require failing specs?
In-Reply-To: <8d18f1f80907151503p5ce63890k470f56f663d28190@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d18f1f80907151503p5ce63890k470f56f663d28190@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907151521o72c6a0e6ye6e2e26bdeef15b8@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Adam Anderson<adamandersonis at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sometimes when features are asked to be removed it doesn't make sense to
> specify that they shouldn't be there. It seems to me that removing something
> from a tested app should not entail writing a failing spec for that change.
> I'm curious if people have different opinions or insights on this.
>
> -Adam

I'd generally not spec the absence of a pre-existing feature, but I
think it depends on the nature of the app and the associated risk of
clients (human or other systems) trying to access services that no
longer exist.

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 15 19:09:36 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:09:36 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Routes helpers work differently from helper
	examples compared to page rendering
In-Reply-To: <1c3c86ea-4145-4314-877d-b6a71779a4b5@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
References: <358a910b-edea-4dce-a745-26a474f31647@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907041553s223a0c21o5023428dc29392d8@mail.gmail.com>
	<1c3c86ea-4145-4314-877d-b6a71779a4b5@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907151609m2dd4333ds689004bd4158ed94@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Ed Ruder<ed.ruder at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think that ticket applies to my problem--as I read it,
> https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/843 is about
> enhancing RSpec with additional routing tests/specs.
>
> My issue is that in the context of a helper spec, when calling route
> helpers (_url/_path methods) from a helper, a different Rails code
> path is executed, giving different results in some cases. ?This means
> that sometimes your helper specs pass when the helper "in the wild"
> doesn't do what's spec'd--you cannot trust your specs!
>
> Thoughts?

Seems like this is an rspec bug. Please file a ticket at
http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com.

Thanks,
David

>
> Ed
>
> On Jul 4, 3:53?pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Ed Ruder<ed.ru... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I have a helper that calls a Rails route _url method. In the context
>> > of a helper spec file, the route helper method ends up calling url_for
>> > in rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/base.rb. In the context of
>> > rendering a page, the route helper method calls url_for in rails/
>> > actionpack/lib/action_view/helpers/url_helper.rb. Though very similar,
>> > they can return different results, as I found out.
>>
>> > Specifically, ActionController::Base#url_for doesn't do html escaping--
>> > ActionView::Helpers::UrlHelper#url_for does, and has an additional
>> > parameter, :escape => true|false, to controller whether or not the
>> > escaping is done.
>>
>> > This took some frustrating time to track down.
>>
>> > Since the code path executed by helper examples is not the same as
>> > production, tests can produce invalid results. Also, some behavior
>> > cannot be tested, since the code generating the results is not being
>> > executed.
>>
>> > Is this a bug in RSpec, or is there a "correct" way to test helpers
>> > that I'm missing?
>>
>> Not sure if this is directly related, but you may be interested in
>> this ticket:https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/843
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From chris at silhouettesolutions.net  Wed Jul 15 23:14:29 2009
From: chris at silhouettesolutions.net (Chris Sund)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] noob question (trying to understand view specs vs
	webrat and cucumber)...
Message-ID: <20fa91a0-d406-46f3-aa34-e22881238f4a@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

Hey Everyone,

I've been reading the rspec book, and I'm trying to tie everything
together, but I'm a little confused. Keep in mind this is my first
introduction to TDD/BDD. When it came to testing my rails app I jumped
into learning rspec before I ever tried to using any of the built in
test:unit stuff. I'm probably a different breed because of this, most
everyone else has probably been using the stuff built into rails
before ever attempting rspec or cucumber. I didn't see the need to
learn something that everyone is going away from, but if it's a
necessary evil please let me know.

I am to the chapter talking about writing view specs, this chapter is
preceded by a chapter that talks about using webrat matchers to help
you test views, and uses cucumber step definitions. I'm having a
problem understanding when I should use cucumber and when I should use
rspec. If I start my app coding by "spec"ing my views then do I really
need to use cucumber at all? Can someone clarify in "simple" terms the
relationship between rspec and cucumber. I feel I understand them
independently, but I'm confused on how and when I choose to use them
together. I have read through the book pretty thoroughly to this point
and feel I have absorbed everything there is to absorb, but my mind
isn't getting this correlation. When going through the codebreaker
example it had me run my cucumber stuff separate from my rspec stuff.
Looking back it seems the only reason I used both was to develop a
more complete test, but in fact I could use one over the other if I
wanted to? That statement makes sense "to me", but I know it's
probably wrong.

I guess while I'm asking questions, I'll ask one more...

 If I want to follow the BDD mantra to the tee, then I would spec all
of my views first, and use this as my starting place for adding every
subsequent test after that right? After the views have been "spec"ed
and are re-factored in the "Green" then I would re-factor again by
adding controller methods or model information to get rid of my stub
code. Am I understanding that correctly?

Any information helps me learn.

Thanks!

Chris


From tom at experthuman.com  Thu Jul 16 01:34:46 2009
From: tom at experthuman.com (Tom Stuart)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:34:46 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] noob question (trying to understand view specs vs
	webrat and cucumber)...
In-Reply-To: <20fa91a0-d406-46f3-aa34-e22881238f4a@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
References: <20fa91a0-d406-46f3-aa34-e22881238f4a@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <9BD579F5-1879-4EAB-B841-D8B69DE2C31A@experthuman.com>

Hi Chris,

On 16 Jul 2009, at 04:14, Chris Sund wrote:
> Can someone clarify in "simple" terms the relationship between rspec  
> and cucumber.

Very short answer:

RSpec is for specifying the behaviour of individual pieces of your  
application, ideally in isolation from all of the other pieces. The  
mocking framework allows you to write specs for each separate piece  
(e.g. each class) in a way that doesn't depend on any of the other  
pieces: "Assuming that pieces A and B and C behave in the way they're  
supposed to, piece D should behave like this...". This gives you a way  
to drive the actual implementation of your application in detail, at  
the level of individual methods doing simple jobs.

Cucumber is for specifying/testing the overall behaviour of your  
application. Whereas RSpec exercises each individual piece in  
isolation, Cucumber exercises the interactions between all of the  
pieces, and allows you to check what happens when several such  
interactions happen in a particular order (e.g. a user playing a  
complete game of Codebreaker, or going through the complete checkout/ 
payment process in a web application). Whereas RSpec examples are very  
fine-grained and implementation-focused, Cucumber features are meant  
to be broad and high-level in a way that makes them meaningful to  
actual users of the application (or the customers who are asking for  
it to be built) rather than just programmers.

One way of thinking about this is that your specs make all sorts of  
assumptions about how the rest of the system is meant to behave, and  
Cucumber is a way of actually checking those assumptions by running  
the system as a whole.

Cheers,
-Tom

From chris at silhouettesolutions.net  Thu Jul 16 01:46:02 2009
From: chris at silhouettesolutions.net (internetchris)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] noob question (trying to understand view specs vs
	webrat and cucumber)...
In-Reply-To: <9BD579F5-1879-4EAB-B841-D8B69DE2C31A@experthuman.com>
References: <20fa91a0-d406-46f3-aa34-e22881238f4a@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
	<9BD579F5-1879-4EAB-B841-D8B69DE2C31A@experthuman.com>
Message-ID: <8dcd4945-ef20-4512-8045-e6a1a146e70c@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>

Tom,

I appreciate the reply...

So would I be correct in saying that I should develop all of my spec
tests first, and then finish it up by running some cucumber tests?

Thanks!

Chris

On Jul 15, 11:34?pm, Tom Stuart <t... at experthuman.com> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On 16 Jul 2009, at 04:14, Chris Sund wrote:
>
> > Can someone clarify in "simple" terms the relationship between rspec ?
> > and cucumber.
>
> Very short answer:
>
> RSpec is for specifying the behaviour of individual pieces of your ?
> application, ideally in isolation from all of the other pieces. The ?
> mocking framework allows you to write specs for each separate piece ?
> (e.g. each class) in a way that doesn't depend on any of the other ?
> pieces: "Assuming that pieces A and B and C behave in the way they're ?
> supposed to, piece D should behave like this...". This gives you a way ?
> to drive the actual implementation of your application in detail, at ?
> the level of individual methods doing simple jobs.
>
> Cucumber is for specifying/testing the overall behaviour of your ?
> application. Whereas RSpec exercises each individual piece in ?
> isolation, Cucumber exercises the interactions between all of the ?
> pieces, and allows you to check what happens when several such ?
> interactions happen in a particular order (e.g. a user playing a ?
> complete game of Codebreaker, or going through the complete checkout/
> payment process in a web application). Whereas RSpec examples are very ?
> fine-grained and implementation-focused, Cucumber features are meant ?
> to be broad and high-level in a way that makes them meaningful to ?
> actual users of the application (or the customers who are asking for ?
> it to be built) rather than just programmers.
>
> One way of thinking about this is that your specs make all sorts of ?
> assumptions about how the rest of the system is meant to behave, and ?
> Cucumber is a way of actually checking those assumptions by running ?
> the system as a whole.
>
> Cheers,
> -Tom
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From tom at experthuman.com  Thu Jul 16 02:29:33 2009
From: tom at experthuman.com (Tom Stuart)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:29:33 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] noob question (trying to understand view specs vs
	webrat and cucumber)...
In-Reply-To: <8dcd4945-ef20-4512-8045-e6a1a146e70c@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
References: <20fa91a0-d406-46f3-aa34-e22881238f4a@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
	<9BD579F5-1879-4EAB-B841-D8B69DE2C31A@experthuman.com>
	<8dcd4945-ef20-4512-8045-e6a1a146e70c@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <E3E44FD7-B436-49A2-91EC-DD2CF8FBD064@experthuman.com>

Hi Chris,

On 16 Jul 2009, at 06:46, internetchris  
<chris at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
> So would I be correct in saying that I should develop all of my spec
> tests first, and then finish it up by running some cucumber tests?

You can do whatever you like. This is certainly a valid way of  
working, and as a testing strategy it would definitely help you to  
catch certain kinds of bugs that you might miss with RSpec alone.

However, BDD is about the design process itself, not (just) testing,  
and the BDD people (and the RSpec book) recommend a process where you  
start at the Cucumber level, i.e. think first about an overall feature  
that you want your application to have, and write that feature up as  
Cucumber scenarios. Although those scenarios will all fail (because  
you haven't written any code yet), they represent what you're aiming  
for. To get them to pass you "drop down" into RSpec and write some  
more detailed specs for the behaviour you think you'll need to get the  
Cucumber scenarios passing, and actually implement the code (to make  
the specs pass) as you go. When all the specs pass then the Cucumber  
feature will also pass unless you've forgotten something. Then you  
move onto writing another Cucumber feature and the design/implement  
cycle continues.

I'm pretty sure there's a diagram of this process (concentric circles  
with arrows) in the first couple of chapters of the RSpec book.

Cheers,
-Tom

From andrew at andrewtimberlake.com  Thu Jul 16 02:47:34 2009
From: andrew at andrewtimberlake.com (Andrew Timberlake)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:47:34 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] noob question (trying to understand view specs vs
	webrat and cucumber)...
In-Reply-To: <8dcd4945-ef20-4512-8045-e6a1a146e70c@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
References: <20fa91a0-d406-46f3-aa34-e22881238f4a@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
	<9BD579F5-1879-4EAB-B841-D8B69DE2C31A@experthuman.com>
	<8dcd4945-ef20-4512-8045-e6a1a146e70c@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <62ad3e390907152347j788a8f69q67c0f1940c929064@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:46 AM,
internetchris<chris at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I appreciate the reply...
>
> So would I be correct in saying that I should develop all of my spec
> tests first, and then finish it up by running some cucumber tests?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Chris
>

Chris

If you follow strict Behaviour Driven Development, then the behaviour
should be defined before the code. Therefore, the Cucumber scenarios
should come first.

My workflow is like this:
Write Cucumber scenario - It will fail because the path isn't defined
Create route entry
Run Cucumber - It now fails because the controller doesn't exist
Create controller spec - It will fail because there's no controller
Create controller
Spec now fails because required model doesn't exist
Write model spec - It will fail because model doesn't exist
Create model
Flesh out model until model spec passes
Flesh out controller until controller spec passes
Continue until Cucumber scenario passes
Repeat until project is complete :-)

I run autospec so most of the test re-runs are done automatically and
therefore the process continues a lot more smoothly than it sounds.
You'll notice that their are no view specs. I don't use view specs 95%
of the time because Cucumber covers this (previously my view specs
where just an assertion that the view was there).
When theirs something very specific I need to ensure is in the view, I
might add a view spec.

Andrew Timberlake
http://ramblingsonrails.com

http://MyMvelope.com - The SIMPLE way to manage your savings

From mchung at gmail.com  Thu Jul 16 02:48:47 2009
From: mchung at gmail.com (Marc Chung)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] ArgumentError during rake specs
Message-ID: <d2350793-ae21-4bb7-877d-75edde02689a@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>

Hello,

On a recently setup machine, a freshly checked out project started to
fail in the strangest way. When executing 'rake spec', all the specs
would fail because of the same ArgumentError:

"wrong number of arguments (0 for 1)"

This gist contains the backtrace of a single failing test:
http://gist.github.com/148267

http://gist.github.com/148267

Line 180 of vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/test_case.rb:
180 is:

   def setup_controller_request_and_response
      @request = TestRequest.new
      @response = TestResponse.new
      ...
   end

Which doesn't take an argument at all.

Has anyone seen this behavior before?
Does anyone have any ideas on how to further debug this problem?
I'm running Ruby 1.8.7, Rails 2.3.0, and RSpec 1.2.6

Regards,

-Marc

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul 16 08:54:44 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:54:44 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] ArgumentError during rake specs
In-Reply-To: <d2350793-ae21-4bb7-877d-75edde02689a@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
References: <d2350793-ae21-4bb7-877d-75edde02689a@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907160554j5fff7ebfka0ccc4044ef3c1d4@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Marc Chung<mchung at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On a recently setup machine, a freshly checked out project started to
> fail in the strangest way. When executing 'rake spec', all the specs
> would fail because of the same ArgumentError:
>
> "wrong number of arguments (0 for 1)"
>
> This gist contains the backtrace of a single failing test:
> http://gist.github.com/148267
>
> http://gist.github.com/148267
>
> Line 180 of vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/test_case.rb:
> 180 is:
>
> ? def setup_controller_request_and_response
> ? ? ?@request = TestRequest.new
> ? ? ?@response = TestResponse.new
> ? ? ?...
> ? end
>
> Which doesn't take an argument at all.
>
> Has anyone seen this behavior before?
> Does anyone have any ideas on how to further debug this problem?
> I'm running Ruby 1.8.7, Rails 2.3.0, and RSpec 1.2.6

First - Rails-2.3.0 was a release candidate, and there were some
changes before it went final. So I'd recommend upgrading that to 2.3.2
(or at least 2.3.1) to start.

Also, the backtrace shows that you've got rails vendored - are you
absolutely sure that you've got 2.3.0 and not some arbitrary commit
from whatever was edge at the moment?

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

From sfeley at gmail.com  Thu Jul 16 11:35:52 2009
From: sfeley at gmail.com (Stephen Eley)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:35:52 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Should deleting code require failing specs?
In-Reply-To: <8d18f1f80907151503p5ce63890k470f56f663d28190@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d18f1f80907151503p5ce63890k470f56f663d28190@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1fb4df0907160835o3d630e30k81a859d78bb5ea8f@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Adam Anderson<adamandersonis at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sometimes when features are asked to be removed it doesn't make sense to
> specify that they shouldn't be there. It seems to me that removing something
> from a tested app should not entail writing a failing spec for that change.
> I'm curious if people have different opinions or insights on this.

I'd think about the following:

* Is the *absence* of the feature a new functional requirement?

* Would the existence of the feature after it's not supposed to be
there any more have an impact on users or other stakeholders?

* Is removing the feature likely to be problematic for any reason?

* Is it at all possible that the way you deploy code could cause the
feature -- or part of the feature -- to be there when it shouldn't be?
 (This is usually a "yes."  Even if you're doing an online app with
cookie-cutter Git and Capistrano deployment, someone could forget to
merge the right branch, or leave "drop table" migrations dangling, or
whatever.)

You want to spec things that matter.  If it *matters* that something
goes away in a predictable manner, and there's any possibility that it
might not, it's probably worthwhile to write specs for it.  If the
reason you're removing it is just because no one's using it and no one
cares...  *shrug*  Then you're not obliged to care more than anybody
else does.  >8->


-- 
Have Fun,
   Steve Eley (sfeley at gmail.com)
   ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
   http://www.escapepod.org

From chris at silhouettesolutions.net  Thu Jul 16 12:28:37 2009
From: chris at silhouettesolutions.net (internetchris)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] noob question (trying to understand view specs vs
	webrat and cucumber)...
In-Reply-To: <62ad3e390907152347j788a8f69q67c0f1940c929064@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20fa91a0-d406-46f3-aa34-e22881238f4a@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
	<9BD579F5-1879-4EAB-B841-D8B69DE2C31A@experthuman.com>
	<8dcd4945-ef20-4512-8045-e6a1a146e70c@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
	<62ad3e390907152347j788a8f69q67c0f1940c929064@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <22a78829-b726-4949-84a6-20c0ad12cbf3@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

Very nice.... the ability to see your workflow helps me a ton. I guess
I needed to see what other developers did. I have a project that I
started, but then quit until I nailed down the testing. I will have to
catch up on the code I have already written, but I'm grasping the
cucumber and rspec correlation now. On anything new I will start with
Cucumber and then to rspec to iron out the actual code.

Thanks!

Chris

On Jul 16, 12:47?am, Andrew Timberlake <and... at andrewtimberlake.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:46 AM,
>
> internetchris<ch... at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
> > Tom,
>
> > I appreciate the reply...
>
> > So would I be correct in saying that I should develop all of my spec
> > tests first, and then finish it up by running some cucumber tests?
>
> > Thanks!
>
> > Chris
>
> Chris
>
> If you follow strict Behaviour Driven Development, then the behaviour
> should be defined before the code. Therefore, the Cucumber scenarios
> should come first.
>
> My workflow is like this:
> Write Cucumber scenario - It will fail because the path isn't defined
> Create route entry
> Run Cucumber - It now fails because the controller doesn't exist
> Create controller spec - It will fail because there's no controller
> Create controller
> Spec now fails because required model doesn't exist
> Write model spec - It will fail because model doesn't exist
> Create model
> Flesh out model until model spec passes
> Flesh out controller until controller spec passes
> Continue until Cucumber scenario passes
> Repeat until project is complete :-)
>
> I run autospec so most of the test re-runs are done automatically and
> therefore the process continues a lot more smoothly than it sounds.
> You'll notice that their are no view specs. I don't use view specs 95%
> of the time because Cucumber covers this (previously my view specs
> where just an assertion that the view was there).
> When theirs something very specific I need to ensure is in the view, I
> might add a view spec.
>
> Andrew Timberlakehttp://ramblingsonrails.com
>
> http://MyMvelope.com- The SIMPLE way to manage your savings
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From mchung at gmail.com  Thu Jul 16 16:34:01 2009
From: mchung at gmail.com (Marc Chung)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] ArgumentError during rake specs
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907160554j5fff7ebfka0ccc4044ef3c1d4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d2350793-ae21-4bb7-877d-75edde02689a@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907160554j5fff7ebfka0ccc4044ef3c1d4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cc012cdf-eb06-45f2-9869-c37f07e5fd9e@n30g2000vba.googlegroups.com>

David,

Thank you, that did it.

I vendored rails-2.3.2 and all the specs started working again.  I
tried it out with 2.3.3, but I ran into a single failing spec
(SystemStackError: stack level too deep).

I'm good with 2.3.2.

-Marc


On Jul 16, 5:54?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Marc Chung<mch... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
>
> > On a recently setup machine, a freshly checked out project started to
> > fail in the strangest way. When executing 'rake spec', all the specs
> > would fail because of the same ArgumentError:
>
> > "wrong number of arguments (0 for 1)"
>
> > This gist contains the backtrace of a single failing test:
> >http://gist.github.com/148267
>
> >http://gist.github.com/148267
>
> > Line 180 of vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/test_case.rb:
> > 180 is:
>
> > ? def setup_controller_request_and_response
> > ? ? ?@request = TestRequest.new
> > ? ? ?@response = TestResponse.new
> > ? ? ?...
> > ? end
>
> > Which doesn't take an argument at all.
>
> > Has anyone seen this behavior before?
> > Does anyone have any ideas on how to further debug this problem?
> > I'm running Ruby 1.8.7, Rails 2.3.0, and RSpec 1.2.6
>
> First - Rails-2.3.0 was a release candidate, and there were some
> changes before it went final. So I'd recommend upgrading that to 2.3.2
> (or at least 2.3.1) to start.
>
> Also, the backtrace shows that you've got rails vendored - are you
> absolutely sure that you've got 2.3.0 and not some arbitrary commit
> from whatever was edge at the moment?
>
>
>
> > Regards,
>
> > -Marc
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul 16 16:40:48 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:40:48 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] ArgumentError during rake specs
In-Reply-To: <cc012cdf-eb06-45f2-9869-c37f07e5fd9e@n30g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
References: <d2350793-ae21-4bb7-877d-75edde02689a@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907160554j5fff7ebfka0ccc4044ef3c1d4@mail.gmail.com>
	<cc012cdf-eb06-45f2-9869-c37f07e5fd9e@n30g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907161340i382c8a5epae8a391b52d52e6c@mail.gmail.com>

$ gem q -rn rails | grep ^rails*
rails (2.3.2)

What's 2.3.3?


On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Marc Chung<mchung at gmail.com> wrote:
> David,
>
> Thank you, that did it.
>
> I vendored rails-2.3.2 and all the specs started working again. ?I
> tried it out with 2.3.3, but I ran into a single failing spec
> (SystemStackError: stack level too deep).
>
> I'm good with 2.3.2.
>
> -Marc
>
>
> On Jul 16, 5:54?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Marc Chung<mch... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>>
>> > On a recently setup machine, a freshly checked out project started to
>> > fail in the strangest way. When executing 'rake spec', all the specs
>> > would fail because of the same ArgumentError:
>>
>> > "wrong number of arguments (0 for 1)"
>>
>> > This gist contains the backtrace of a single failing test:
>> >http://gist.github.com/148267
>>
>> >http://gist.github.com/148267
>>
>> > Line 180 of vendor/rails/actionpack/lib/action_controller/test_case.rb:
>> > 180 is:
>>
>> > ? def setup_controller_request_and_response
>> > ? ? ?@request = TestRequest.new
>> > ? ? ?@response = TestResponse.new
>> > ? ? ?...
>> > ? end
>>
>> > Which doesn't take an argument at all.
>>
>> > Has anyone seen this behavior before?
>> > Does anyone have any ideas on how to further debug this problem?
>> > I'm running Ruby 1.8.7, Rails 2.3.0, and RSpec 1.2.6
>>
>> First - Rails-2.3.0 was a release candidate, and there were some
>> changes before it went final. So I'd recommend upgrading that to 2.3.2
>> (or at least 2.3.1) to start.
>>
>> Also, the backtrace shows that you've got rails vendored - are you
>> absolutely sure that you've got 2.3.0 and not some arbitrary commit
>> from whatever was edge at the moment?
>>
>>
>>
>> > Regards,
>>
>> > -Marc
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rspec-users mailing list
>> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
>> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From matt at mattwynne.net  Thu Jul 16 18:06:28 2009
From: matt at mattwynne.net (Matt Wynne)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:06:28 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Should deleting code require failing specs?
In-Reply-To: <8d18f1f80907151503p5ce63890k470f56f663d28190@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d18f1f80907151503p5ce63890k470f56f663d28190@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B3E020B2-1BC5-4A0A-A342-220345AA372B@mattwynne.net>


On 15 Jul 2009, at 23:03, Adam Anderson wrote:

> Sometimes when features are asked to be removed it doesn't make  
> sense to specify that they shouldn't be there. It seems to me that  
> removing something from a tested app should not entail writing a  
> failing spec for that change. I'm curious if people have different  
> opinions or insights on this.

I think it depends on whether there's a chance the change you're  
making to remove the feature could regress somehow. If you feel the  
need to hem that potential regression in with a test then do it. If  
you're just chopping off loose code that nobody cares about anymore,  
chop if off and move on.

cheers,
Matt

+447974 430184
matt at mattwynne.net
http://mattwynne.net


From matt at mattwynne.net  Thu Jul 16 18:10:42 2009
From: matt at mattwynne.net (Matt Wynne)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:10:42 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] noob question (trying to understand view specs vs
	webrat and cucumber)...
In-Reply-To: <22a78829-b726-4949-84a6-20c0ad12cbf3@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
References: <20fa91a0-d406-46f3-aa34-e22881238f4a@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
	<9BD579F5-1879-4EAB-B841-D8B69DE2C31A@experthuman.com>
	<8dcd4945-ef20-4512-8045-e6a1a146e70c@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
	<62ad3e390907152347j788a8f69q67c0f1940c929064@mail.gmail.com>
	<22a78829-b726-4949-84a6-20c0ad12cbf3@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <1A8ECDFE-93FB-47BC-916B-4B45B1066DD4@mattwynne.net>


On 16 Jul 2009, at 17:28, internetchris wrote:

> Very nice.... the ability to see your workflow helps me a ton. I guess
> I needed to see what other developers did. I have a project that I
> started, but then quit until I nailed down the testing. I will have to
> catch up on the code I have already written, but I'm grasping the
> cucumber and rspec correlation now. On anything new I will start with
> Cucumber and then to rspec to iron out the actual code.

Have you seen these:
http://railscasts.com/episodes/155-beginning-with-cucumber
http://railscasts.com/episodes/159-more-on-cucumber

They'll give you a good feel for how to get started with your cukes.

> Thanks!
>
> Chris
>
> On Jul 16, 12:47 am, Andrew Timberlake <and... at andrewtimberlake.com>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:46 AM,
>>
>> internetchris<ch... at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
>>> Tom,
>>
>>> I appreciate the reply...
>>
>>> So would I be correct in saying that I should develop all of my spec
>>> tests first, and then finish it up by running some cucumber tests?
>>
>>> Thanks!
>>
>>> Chris
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> If you follow strict Behaviour Driven Development, then the behaviour
>> should be defined before the code. Therefore, the Cucumber scenarios
>> should come first.
>>
>> My workflow is like this:
>> Write Cucumber scenario - It will fail because the path isn't defined
>> Create route entry
>> Run Cucumber - It now fails because the controller doesn't exist
>> Create controller spec - It will fail because there's no controller
>> Create controller
>> Spec now fails because required model doesn't exist
>> Write model spec - It will fail because model doesn't exist
>> Create model
>> Flesh out model until model spec passes
>> Flesh out controller until controller spec passes
>> Continue until Cucumber scenario passes
>> Repeat until project is complete :-)
>>
>> I run autospec so most of the test re-runs are done automatically and
>> therefore the process continues a lot more smoothly than it sounds.
>> You'll notice that their are no view specs. I don't use view specs  
>> 95%
>> of the time because Cucumber covers this (previously my view specs
>> where just an assertion that the view was there).
>> When theirs something very specific I need to ensure is in the  
>> view, I
>> might add a view spec.
>>
>> Andrew Timberlakehttp://ramblingsonrails.com
>>
>> http://MyMvelope.com- The SIMPLE way to manage your savings
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

cheers,
Matt

+447974 430184
matt at mattwynne.net
http://mattwynne.net


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul 16 22:25:40 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:25:40 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] [ANN] rspec 1.2.8 Released
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907161925t2dbdb65fqbea0159ff8a4fae6@mail.gmail.com>

rspec version 1.2.8 has been released!

* <http://rspec.info>
* <http://rubyforge.org/projects/rspec>
* <http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/wikis>
* <rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
* <rspec-devel at rubyforge.org>

Behaviour Driven Development for Ruby.

Changes:

### Version 1.2.8 / 2008-07-16

* enhancements
  * better messages for should[_not] be_nil (Chad Humphries and Rob Sanheim)
  * should and should_not accept optional custom message
    (suggestion from Rob Sanheim)
    * result.should be_nil, "expected result to be nil"
  * added 'spec/stubs/cucumber' to plug RSpec's stubbing framework into
    Cucumber scenarios.
  * added unstub method to remove a stub mid-example (Scott Taylor). Closes
    #853.
  * add more readable diff when expected and actual are hashes (Ryan Bigg).
    Closes #848.

* bug fixes
  * fixed --line option for ruby 1.9.1
  * fix stub_chain conflict between two chains starting with the same message
    (Mike Rohland). Closes #846.

From ben at benmabey.com  Fri Jul 17 00:39:57 2009
From: ben at benmabey.com (Ben Mabey)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:39:57 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] [ANN] rspec 1.2.8 Released
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907161925t2dbdb65fqbea0159ff8a4fae6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57c63afe0907161925t2dbdb65fqbea0159ff8a4fae6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A60009D.7030907@benmabey.com>

David Chelimsky wrote:
> rspec version 1.2.8 has been released!
>
> * <http://rspec.info>
> * <http://rubyforge.org/projects/rspec>
> * <http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/wikis>
> * <rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
> * <rspec-devel at rubyforge.org>
>
> Behaviour Driven Development for Ruby.
>
> Changes:
>
> ### Version 1.2.8 / 2008-07-16
>
> * enhancements
>   * better messages for should[_not] be_nil (Chad Humphries and Rob Sanheim)
>   * should and should_not accept optional custom message
>     (suggestion from Rob Sanheim)
>   
Ahh, very nice.  I've been wanting something like this for a while.  For 
those interested in how to use this feature check out the examples in 
this cucumber feature for it:

http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/blob/1420b6f02f5fe2ba97286d895b8215617f80d4a6/features/matchers/define_matcher_with_user_customizable_message.feature

Thanks for the release.

-Ben

>     * result.should be_nil, "expected result to be nil"
>   * added 'spec/stubs/cucumber' to plug RSpec's stubbing framework into
>     Cucumber scenarios.
>   * added unstub method to remove a stub mid-example (Scott Taylor). Closes
>     #853.
>   * add more readable diff when expected and actual are hashes (Ryan Bigg).
>     Closes #848.
>
> * bug fixes
>   * fixed --line option for ruby 1.9.1
>   * fix stub_chain conflict between two chains starting with the same message
>     (Mike Rohland). Closes #846.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>   


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul 17 07:10:14 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:10:14 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] [ANN] rspec 1.2.8 Released
In-Reply-To: <4A60009D.7030907@benmabey.com>
References: <57c63afe0907161925t2dbdb65fqbea0159ff8a4fae6@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A60009D.7030907@benmabey.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907170410n2ceba62bi20e9de868e7ad697@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Ben Mabey<ben at benmabey.com> wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>> rspec version 1.2.8 has been released!
>>
>> * <http://rspec.info>
>> * <http://rubyforge.org/projects/rspec>
>> * <http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/wikis>
>> * <rspec-users at rubyforge.org>
>> * <rspec-devel at rubyforge.org>
>>
>> Behaviour Driven Development for Ruby.
>>
>> Changes:
>>
>> ### Version 1.2.8 / 2008-07-16
>>
>> * enhancements
>> ?* better messages for should[_not] be_nil (Chad Humphries and Rob
>> Sanheim)
>> ?* should and should_not accept optional custom message
>> ? ?(suggestion from Rob Sanheim)
>>
>
> Ahh, very nice. ?I've been wanting something like this for a while. ?For
> those interested in how to use this feature check out the examples in this
> cucumber feature for it:
>
> http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/blob/1420b6f02f5fe2ba97286d895b8215617f80d4a6/features/matchers/define_matcher_with_user_customizable_message.feature

Thanks for pointing that out, Ben, but that was an earlier commit and
the API changed (before the release, of course). Here's the current
cucumber feature for this that shipped w/ the release:

http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/blob/aa1d064b258a20e4655efe527891acc7f04ec6b2/features/expectations/customized_message.feature

Cheers,
David

>
> Thanks for the release.
>
> -Ben
>
>> ? ?* result.should be_nil, "expected result to be nil"
>> ?* added 'spec/stubs/cucumber' to plug RSpec's stubbing framework into
>> ? ?Cucumber scenarios.
>> ?* added unstub method to remove a stub mid-example (Scott Taylor). Closes
>> ? ?#853.
>> ?* add more readable diff when expected and actual are hashes (Ryan Bigg).
>> ? ?Closes #848.
>>
>> * bug fixes
>> ?* fixed --line option for ruby 1.9.1
>> ?* fix stub_chain conflict between two chains starting with the same
>> message
>> ? ?(Mike Rohland). Closes #846.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 leogodin217 at gmail.com  Fri Jul 17 13:08:03 2009
From: leogodin217 at gmail.com (Leo Godin)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] testing controller instance variables
In-Reply-To: <8d18f1f80907151505q37ba0d13p3ead8fbd3df365ba@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d221bd70-8a9b-435f-9d18-b654bd6c615d@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
	<8d18f1f80907151505q37ba0d13p3ead8fbd3df365ba@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <921c0de7-d960-4dca-b536-7b0b40aa0119@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>

Thanks,
That works at least to the point where it is testing the variable.
However, it is calling it NIL.  How do I tell the test to make it be
3?

In the controller I have:
  @num_found = @purchase_requests.size

This is what I tried in the spec:

  it "should count the number of purchase requests found" do
    @purchase_requests.stub!(:size).and_return 3
    get :index
    assigns(:num_requests).should == 3
  end

This is the error:

'PurchaseRequestsController Get index should count the number of
purchase requests found' FAILED
expected: 3,
     got: nil (using ==)
./spec/controllers/purchase

On Jul 15, 3:05?pm, Adam Anderson <adamanderso... at gmail.com> wrote:
> you need to use the assigns method like so
>
> ?it "should count the number of purchase requests found" do
> ? ?get :index
> ? ?assigns(:num_found).should == 3
> ?end
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Leo <leogodin... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > HI All,
> > I have a controller with the following in it:
>
> > ?def index
> > ? ?@purchase_requests = PurchaseRequest.find(:all)
> > ? ?@num_found = @purchase_requests.size
> > ?end
>
> > I want to test that @num_found is getting the number of purchase
> > requests.
>
> > This is what I've tried:
>
> > ?it "should count the number of purchase requests found" do
> > ? ?@purchase_requests.stub!(:size).and_return 3
> > ? ?@num_found.should_equal(3)
> > ? ?get :index
> > ?end
>
> > However, I Get This Error:
>
> > NoMethodError in 'PurchaseRequestsController Get index should count
> > the number of purchase requests found'
> > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> > The error occurred while evaluating nil.should_equal
> > ./spec/controllers/purchase_requests_controller_spec.rb:21:
>
> > It seems that rspec wants me to stub the instance variable. ?If I do
> > that then I don't think I'd actually be testing anything because I'd
> > create the stub in the test and verify that the stub I created is
> > there. ?I want to make sure that the test will fail if I delete the
> > line in the actual controller or change the name. ?Can someone show me
> > how to do this?
> > thanks in advance.
> > Leo
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From rick.denatale at gmail.com  Fri Jul 17 15:25:52 2009
From: rick.denatale at gmail.com (Rick DeNatale)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:25:52 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] testing controller instance variables
In-Reply-To: <921c0de7-d960-4dca-b536-7b0b40aa0119@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
References: <d221bd70-8a9b-435f-9d18-b654bd6c615d@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
	<8d18f1f80907151505q37ba0d13p3ead8fbd3df365ba@mail.gmail.com>
	<921c0de7-d960-4dca-b536-7b0b40aa0119@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <deb2337a0907171225s5b0bf50nc9c4a7853d17a3c8@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Leo Godin<leogodin217 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks,
> That works at least to the point where it is testing the variable.
> However, it is calling it NIL. ?How do I tell the test to make it be
> 3?
>
> In the controller I have:
> ?@num_found = @purchase_requests.size
>
> This is what I tried in the spec:
>
> ?it "should count the number of purchase requests found" do
> ? ?@purchase_requests.stub!(:size).and_return 3
> ? ?get :index
> ? ?assigns(:num_requests).should == 3
> ?end
>
> This is the error:
>
> 'PurchaseRequestsController Get index should count the number of
> purchase requests found' FAILED
> expected: 3,
> ? ? got: nil (using ==)
> ./spec/controllers/purchase

Well first off the instance variable that your controller method is
setting is @num_found, not @num_requests. So that't the first problem.

Then the @purchase_requests IV will refer to a different object when
you stub it than after it gets set in your method. So @num_requests is
going to be set to the size* of the association returned by the
expression

 @purchase_requests = PurchaseRequest.find(:all)

>From your initial post.

One tack to take is to stub the PurchaseRequest class itself:

it "should count the number of purchase requests found" do
   purchase  = mock("purchase_requests", :size => 3)
   PurchaseRequest.stub!(:find).and_return(3)
   get :index
   assigns(:num_found).should == 3
 end

* I prefer to use length rather than size in Ruby because size
sometimes means the number of elements, and sometimes something else
like the number of bytes, depending in the receiver object.

-- 
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

From celoserpa at gmail.com  Mon Jul 20 18:30:03 2009
From: celoserpa at gmail.com (Marcelo de Moraes Serpa)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:30:03 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Cucumber step or model spec?
Message-ID: <1e5bcefd0907201530p532cb5b9ra447bf7a57a367ca@mail.gmail.com>

Hello list,

 I have an example/spec that relates to the Product#index view and
says "it should display only the active products". The thing is the
logic to filter the active products should be in the model, and not on
the view, since the view should be "dumb". I just realized that, and
what I think is, even though this statement has business value, it is
not lower level enough to be a view spec, nor a model or controller
spec -- it should be a cucumber step, if any.

Could someone enlighten-me, here? :)

Thanks in advance,

Marcelo.

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul 20 18:58:56 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:58:56 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Cucumber step or model spec?
In-Reply-To: <1e5bcefd0907201530p532cb5b9ra447bf7a57a367ca@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1e5bcefd0907201530p532cb5b9ra447bf7a57a367ca@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907201558x3f25612fg982f5cf4b65bd48@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Marcelo de Moraes
Serpa<celoserpa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> ?I have an example/spec that relates to the Product#index view and
> says "it should display only the active products". The thing is the
> logic to filter the active products should be in the model, and not on
> the view, since the view should be "dumb". I just realized that, and
> what I think is, even though this statement has business value, it is
> not lower level enough to be a view spec, nor a model or controller
> spec -- it should be a cucumber step, if any.
>
> Could someone enlighten-me, here? :)

Hi Marcelo,

This is a point of confusion for many, so you're not alone. I'll offer
my take, though I know there are others who see it differently.

I use Cucumber for specifying application behaviour and RSpec for
specifying lower level component behaviour. In the scenario you
describe:
* the application's job is to show only the active products
* the view's job is to display any products it is given by the controller
* the controller's job is to ask the model for the active products
* the model's job is to supply only the active products

So for me this is not an either/or question. Each underlying component
has a responsibility, and the result of the three components doing the
right thing adds up to the application behaving correctly.

Now, it happens that the outcomes we expect from the application are
the same outcomes we expect from the view. Many see this as
duplication, and if you agree with them, then you still may want a
cucumber scenario + a controller spec + a model spec.

For me, even though they appear to be overlapping, they are not. The
outcomes are the same, but the inputs are different. The scenario says
the application has to show x given some inputs. The view spec says
the view has to show x given some data supplied by the controller.
Different behaviour.

Now the last question I'd ask myself is whether the duplication in the
expected outcomes in the scenario and the view spec buys me anything,
and that really depends on how complex the view is, and whether I
anticipate doing much refactoring with it (moving partials around,
etc). One approach would be to err on the side of less overhead, but
then when I do go to refactor, make sure there are relevant view specs
in place before I do.

HTH,
David





>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Marcelo.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From lee.hambley at gmail.com  Mon Jul 20 19:01:30 2009
From: lee.hambley at gmail.com (Lee Hambley)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:01:30 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Cucumber step or model spec?
In-Reply-To: <1e5bcefd0907201530p532cb5b9ra447bf7a57a367ca@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1e5bcefd0907201530p532cb5b9ra447bf7a57a367ca@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e2172f210907201601n1664668fj999aabfcb261a91a@mail.gmail.com>

Marcelo,
My take on this is that if your business user wants to make sure that there
are only active products displayed, then it should be in a story.

There may be a question about speccing the implementation; however if you
are using a named scope - you might argue that you are testing a library
(and thus, you shouldn't bother, as the library should test itself.) I would
consider a simple spec for named scope to prove that it works.

With the named scope tested you can mention it incidentally in your story
and not get too hung up on the exact details.

I've just noticed I've been writing this draft for so long, David C has also
answered, I am as interested as you to read that, so HTH.

-- Lee Hambley

Twitter: @leehambley
Blog: http://lee.hambley.name/
Working with Rails: http://is.gd/1s5W1


2009/7/20 Marcelo de Moraes Serpa <celoserpa at gmail.com>

> Hello list,
>
>  I have an example/spec that relates to the Product#index view and
> says "it should display only the active products". The thing is the
> logic to filter the active products should be in the model, and not on
> the view, since the view should be "dumb". I just realized that, and
> what I think is, even though this statement has business value, it is
> not lower level enough to be a view spec, nor a model or controller
> spec -- it should be a cucumber step, if any.
>
> Could someone enlighten-me, here? :)
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Marcelo.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090721/621a6f47/attachment.html>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Mon Jul 20 19:04:16 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:04:16 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Cucumber step or model spec?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907201558x3f25612fg982f5cf4b65bd48@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1e5bcefd0907201530p532cb5b9ra447bf7a57a367ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0907201558x3f25612fg982f5cf4b65bd48@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907201604te4d6f16m9ba220a82962166e@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:58 PM, David Chelimsky<dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Marcelo de Moraes
> Serpa<celoserpa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello list,
>>
>> ?I have an example/spec that relates to the Product#index view and
>> says "it should display only the active products". The thing is the
>> logic to filter the active products should be in the model, and not on
>> the view, since the view should be "dumb". I just realized that, and
>> what I think is, even though this statement has business value, it is
>> not lower level enough to be a view spec, nor a model or controller
>> spec -- it should be a cucumber step, if any.
>>
>> Could someone enlighten-me, here? :)
>
> Hi Marcelo,
>
> This is a point of confusion for many, so you're not alone. I'll offer
> my take, though I know there are others who see it differently.
>
> I use Cucumber for specifying application behaviour and RSpec for
> specifying lower level component behaviour. In the scenario you
> describe:
> * the application's job is to show only the active products
> * the view's job is to display any products it is given by the controller
> * the controller's job is to ask the model for the active products
> * the model's job is to supply only the active products
>
> So for me this is not an either/or question. Each underlying component
> has a responsibility, and the result of the three components doing the
> right thing adds up to the application behaving correctly.
>
> Now, it happens that the outcomes we expect from the application are
> the same outcomes we expect from the view. Many see this as
> duplication, and if you agree with them, then you still may want a
> cucumber scenario + a controller spec + a model spec.
>
> For me, even though they appear to be overlapping, they are not. The
> outcomes are the same, but the inputs are different. The scenario says
> the application has to show x given some inputs. The view spec says
> the view has to show x given some data supplied by the controller.
> Different behaviour.
>
> Now the last question I'd ask myself is whether the duplication in the
> expected outcomes in the scenario and the view spec buys me anything,
> and that really depends on how complex the view is, and whether I
> anticipate doing much refactoring with it (moving partials around,
> etc). One approach would be to err on the side of less overhead, but
> then when I do go to refactor, make sure there are relevant view specs
> in place before I do.

Afterthought (or two):

You asked about cucumber scenario vs model spec and I responded from a
wider viewpoint. I think the same thinking applies to the scenario and
the model, though in that case, the expected outcomes are actually
different (application renders stuff on a page, model returns the
right collection).

This is actually a perfect example of when it's good to have view
specs because the view template is probably the same view template
whether the app is displaying active products, inactive products, or
products that shipped last Tuesday. If the view fails to do its job,
three scenarios will fail. Perhaps they'll fail in such a way that you
can quickly isolate the point of failure. Or, perhaps you'll not be
sure whether the problem lies in the view, the controller, or the
model. In this case, being able to see passing specs for the view
would help point you to the other components.

Food for thought.

Cheers,
David

>
> HTH,
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Marcelo.
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>

From chris at silhouettesolutions.net  Mon Jul 20 23:05:15 2009
From: chris at silhouettesolutions.net (Chris Sund)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] My very fist spec file (not sure what's wrong..)
Message-ID: <381c5397-1df9-4830-b07e-19364fd8324d@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>

Hey Everyone,

I am finally to the point in the rspec book where it describes how to
implement controller specs, so I thought what the heck, I'll give it a
try. I have an app I have been working on (Inside out) that I needed
to get test specs written for before I continue on with the app. Now
that I have read enough of the book I realize I was doing things a
little backwards in the "rspec" sense of BDD, but I thought I would
try to apply what I have learned so far to my existing code.

Here's the feedback I'm getting when I run my spec file....

NoMethodError in 'AccountsController POST create should build a new
account'
You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
You might have expected an instance of ActiveRecord::Base.
The error occurred while evaluating nil.save
/Users/Chris/Rails/obilling/app/controllers/accounts_controller.rb:
24:in `create'
./spec/controllers/accounts_controller_spec.rb:7:
script/spec:10:


Here's my spec file...

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

describe AccountsController, "POST create" do

it "should build a new account"  do
  Account.should_receive(:new).with("address" => "1201 washington
street")
  post :create, :account => {"address" => "1201 washington street"}
end


Here's the create method in my accounts_controller...

def create
    @account = Account.new(params[:account])
     if @account.save
      flash[:notice] = 'Account Record Saved'

    redirect_to(:action=>'edit', :id => @account)
    else
      flash[:warning] = 'Account Record Did Not Save!'
           render :action => 'new'

    end
  end


Keep in mind I'm a noob to everything (except programming). I have
been reading my brains out trying to get a better grasp on the ruby
syntax and how to apply this to rspec and rails. If someone has a
moment to explain this error. I understand that the @account instance
variable is "nil" in the error, but I don't understand why. I'm sure
it has something to do with -- post :create, :account => {"address" =>
"1201 washington street"}. It must be a syntax problem, or the way I'm
defining :account.

Thanks!

Chris

From jonathan at parkerhill.com  Mon Jul 20 22:54:21 2009
From: jonathan at parkerhill.com (Jonathan Linowes)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:54:21 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Cucumber step or model spec?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907201558x3f25612fg982f5cf4b65bd48@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1e5bcefd0907201530p532cb5b9ra447bf7a57a367ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0907201558x3f25612fg982f5cf4b65bd48@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CFA9CA7E-6E10-4784-A271-2B4EAD615612@parkerhill.com>


On Jul 20, 2009, at 6:58 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:

> So for me this is not an either/or question. Each underlying component
> has a responsibility, and the result of the three components doing the
> right thing adds up to the application behaving correctly.

I'd also add that, for me, the cucumber story tends to exercise the  
more "typical" cases whereas my specs are more thorough in covering  
edge cases and exceptions.

linoj


From ben at benmabey.com  Mon Jul 20 23:21:28 2009
From: ben at benmabey.com (Ben Mabey)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:21:28 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] My very fist spec file (not sure what's wrong..)
In-Reply-To: <381c5397-1df9-4830-b07e-19364fd8324d@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
References: <381c5397-1df9-4830-b07e-19364fd8324d@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <4A653438.2040005@benmabey.com>

Chris Sund wrote:
> Hey Everyone,
>
> I am finally to the point in the rspec book where it describes how to
> implement controller specs, so I thought what the heck, I'll give it a
> try. I have an app I have been working on (Inside out) that I needed
> to get test specs written for before I continue on with the app. Now
> that I have read enough of the book I realize I was doing things a
> little backwards in the "rspec" sense of BDD, but I thought I would
> try to apply what I have learned so far to my existing code.
>
> Here's the feedback I'm getting when I run my spec file....
>
> NoMethodError in 'AccountsController POST create should build a new
> account'
> You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> You might have expected an instance of ActiveRecord::Base.
> The error occurred while evaluating nil.save
> /Users/Chris/Rails/obilling/app/controllers/accounts_controller.rb:
> 24:in `create'
> ./spec/controllers/accounts_controller_spec.rb:7:
> script/spec:10:
>
>
> Here's my spec file...
>
> require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper' )
>
> describe AccountsController, "POST create" do
>
> it "should build a new account"  do
>   Account.should_receive(:new).with("address" => "1201 washington
> street")
>   

This is your problem.. you need to return something for 'save' to be 
called on.  i.e.

  Account.should_receive(:new).with("address" => "1201 washington
street").and_return(mock_model(Accrount))

Notice the "and_return" at the end?  That way a mock_model of Account will be returned from the new call so that the controller can set it to @account and save it.

To see some examples of RSpec controller specs you can use a generator to general rspec scaffolding... like so:

./script/generate rspec_scaffold Account

HTH,
Ben


From sfeley at gmail.com  Mon Jul 20 23:45:54 2009
From: sfeley at gmail.com (Stephen Eley)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:45:54 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] how to spec a recursive method that creates db
	records?
In-Reply-To: <83e853830907201733m3619394ck2f75ef1918c4fcc4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <83e853830907201733m3619394ck2f75ef1918c4fcc4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1fb4df0907202045t632dafa4l7b362a37a8d79f4e@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Barun Singh<barunio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I want to find a way to write a spec for this method that does both of these
> things:
> (1)? stub out the do_something method (that method has its own specs)
> (2)? not stub out the logic in the else statement, (there is some complex
> logic in there involving sql queries on multiple tables and i explicitly
> want to make it touch the database so that I can examine the state of the
> database after the method is run in my spec.? a lot of complex stubs would
> be required to do this while also having the spec that is actually useful)

Okay, first off -- I think part of your problem is that your focus is
too short.  It sounds like you're asking how to write different specs
for various lines of the _internals_ of this method.  That's too
fine-grained.  Spec the method from the _outside:_ write specs that
say "If I give the method these inputs, this should happen."  Then
test that the end result of the method's execution was what you
expect.

I'm betting that probably sounds really difficult, given the "complex
logic" you're describing.  And that would be my second, more important
tip: if your method is so complicated that you can't spec it from the
outside, you should take that as a sign.  Spaghetti code is usually
very hard to spec.

Reconsider your problem.  Try breaking it down into smaller, more
easily specified pieces, and then recompose them into the logic that
you need.  I don't know your business rules; it looks to me like the
basic task here is "Keep twiddling with the database until I get what
I'm looking for, as many times as that takes."  I don't know why
that's necessary, but if it is, recursion doesn't seem like the most
elegant answer to me.  Recursive calls are usually made in small
functions that don't have side effects.  This is the opposite.

What would I do instead?  Again, without knowing your specific
business, I'd probably break it into pieces, and then turn the
requirement inside out and do it with a loop:

def self.find_something(inputs)
  <find something in db based on inputs>
end

def self.add_something(inputs)
  <add something to db based on inputs>
end

And then, wherever you *would* have called mymethod(inputs), you can
instead write this, which will loop zero or more times:

add_something_to_db(inputs) until x = find_something(inputs)
x.do_something

...Whether or not you still want to wrap that in a method probably
depends on whether you need to call it more than once.  But I'll bet
you that the "add_something" and "find_something" methods are both
easier to spec from the outside.  If they're still too complex, then
break them down too.


Oh, and final trivia note:

> any thoughts on how to accomplish this?? two approaches that would make
> sense but don't seem to be possible as far as i know are:
> (A)? stub out the do_something method for any instance of the class (i can't
> stub it out for a particular record because the records don't exist at the
> time of calling the method and I'm not stubbing the creation process)
> (B)  stub out "mymethod" only for the second time it is called (obviously i
> can't stub the method out entirely since that's the method i'm testing)

You can do both of these with the Mocha mocking library, if you really
want to.  It puts an "any_instance" method on Class that you can use
to mock or stub; and you can specify ordered chains of results to
return.

But again, you shouldn't need to if your methods are atomic enough.
If 'do_something' properly belongs outside the scope of what you're
testing, then maybe that's a sign that you shouldn't put it in the
same block of code.  And if you find a need to declare that your
method should behave entirely differently on a second invocation,
maybe it shouldn't be one method.

Simplify relentlessly.  Once I figured out how to make my code
simpler, I found that I wasn't mocking nearly as much as I used to.


-- 
Have Fun,
   Steve Eley (sfeley at gmail.com)
   ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
   http://www.escapepod.org

From sfeley at gmail.com  Mon Jul 20 23:59:17 2009
From: sfeley at gmail.com (Stephen Eley)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:59:17 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] My very fist spec file (not sure what's wrong..)
In-Reply-To: <381c5397-1df9-4830-b07e-19364fd8324d@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
References: <381c5397-1df9-4830-b07e-19364fd8324d@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <1fb4df0907202059g38d5a900u2c996adea177acb9@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Chris
Sund<chris at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
>
> I am finally to the point in the rspec book where it describes how to
> implement controller specs, so I thought what the heck, I'll give it a
> try.

Heh.  Points to you for ambition!  You might not have realized this
(because the RSpec book makes it sound like it should *all* be easy)
but starting with a Rails controller spec for your very first spec is
a bit like saying "I was thinking of getting scuba certified...
Ooooh, CAVE DIVING!  Let's start with that first!"*

On the upside, if you start there and really get to *understand*
what's going on, you should be relieved when most of the rest of it is
pretty smooth sailing.  There are very few common Ruby idioms that
have such tight coupling as Rails controllers, so very few tasks are
so hard to spec in isolation.  You'll almost never have to mock
anything else as ferociously.  Model specs in particular will feel
like sunshine and puppies.

So go you!


--
Have Fun,  *(Granted, I don't think anyone has ever kicked up silt
while writing a controller spec, lost hold of their guide line, gotten
hopelessly lost, and died many hours later in the cold and dark.  Yet.
 That only happens to J2EE programmers.)
   Steve Eley (sfeley at gmail.com)
   ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
   http://www.escapepod.org

From sfeley at gmail.com  Tue Jul 21 02:31:58 2009
From: sfeley at gmail.com (Stephen Eley)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:31:58 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] how to spec a recursive method that creates db
	records?
In-Reply-To: <83e853830907202305p476662a4we4ba558bfecbdb90@mail.gmail.com>
References: <83e853830907201733m3619394ck2f75ef1918c4fcc4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fb4df0907202045t632dafa4l7b362a37a8d79f4e@mail.gmail.com>
	<83e853830907202305p476662a4we4ba558bfecbdb90@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1fb4df0907202331r69d3edebt2d1e02bda70f4817@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Barun Singh<barunio at gmail.com> wrote:
> This isn't a question of refactoring; I can
> easily refactor the method as you describe but this doesn't resolve the
> issue (indeed, it just leads to an increased number of public methods in the
> model with no real benefit).

Why would they have to be public?


> I can easily spec the find_something and add_something methods so I know
> that they work correctly.? My question is, how do I write a spec for
> find_or_add_something in a way where I don't have to re-test the behavior of
> the individual find_something and add_something methods a second time, and
> can just test the overall logic of that method?

My answer for that remains the same: spec it from the outside.  Treat
it as a black box.  Set up an initial state, then write specs that
express the expectation that inputs A, B, and C should yield output D.
 (Where D might be a database record, or a returned value, or both, or
whatever.)  The number of specs you write in this manner will depend
on the number of interesting ways that your method could go right or
wrong.  You may need to provide multiple initial states as well, but
that's easy in RSpec with nested 'describe' or 'context' blocks.

That the method calls 'add_something' and 'find_something' on the
inside is immaterial.  You don't have to isolate everything from
everything else.  If we stubbed every method call inside every method
we tested, we'd soon get to the point where we were stubbing '+' or
'gsub' or 'print.'

Your specs shouldn't have to care how 'find_and_add_something' works.
What you are expressing is that it DOES work.  Test the inputs and
outputs, and let it call whatever it wants to get from one to the
other.



-- 
Have Fun,
   Steve Eley (sfeley at gmail.com)
   ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
   http://www.escapepod.org

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jul 21 05:49:52 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:49:52 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] how to spec a recursive method that creates db
	records?
In-Reply-To: <83e853830907202305p476662a4we4ba558bfecbdb90@mail.gmail.com>
References: <83e853830907201733m3619394ck2f75ef1918c4fcc4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fb4df0907202045t632dafa4l7b362a37a8d79f4e@mail.gmail.com>
	<83e853830907202305p476662a4we4ba558bfecbdb90@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907210249j4f0db9adocec7b25cd9a0fa6c@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Barun,

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:05 AM, Barun Singh<barunio at gmail.com> wrote:
> I certainly appreciate the thoughtful and lengthy reply, but I think it
> misses the main part of my problem -- perhaps my original explanation of my
> issue was lacking in clarity.? This isn't a question of refactoring; I can
> easily refactor the method as you describe but this doesn't resolve the
> issue (indeed, it just leads to an increased number of public methods in the
> model with no real benefit).

You want to know your code works, right? Testability _is_ a real
benefit. Obviously everything needs to be balanced, and if you can do
things in a pure API, non-invasive way, you're going to end up with a
more flexible result. But sometimes we have to make tradeoffs.

> So, to more clearly illustrate my question,
> forget about my original method and instead let's say I have three methods
> as follows:
>
> def self.find_something(inputs)
> ? .. do stuff here
> end
>
> def self.add_something(inputs)
> ? .. do stuff here
> end
>
> def self.find_or_add_something(inputs)
> ? x = self.find_something(inputs)
> ? if !x
> ??? self.add_something(inputs)
> ??? x = self.find_something(inputs)
> ? end
> ? x
> end
>
> I can easily spec the find_something and add_something methods so I know
> that they work correctly.? My question is, how do I write a spec for
> find_or_add_something in a way where I don't have to re-test the behavior of
> the individual find_something and add_something methods a second time, and
> can just test the overall logic of that method?

This is _very_ invasive and brittle, and I'd likely not approach it
this way myself, but it works:

http://gist.github.com/151226

HTH,
David

>
> It's helpful to know that Mocha is available to assist with this, but I'd
> rather not switch to an entirely different framework for mocks & stubs just
> because of this one method...
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Stephen Eley <sfeley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Barun Singh<barunio at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I want to find a way to write a spec for this method that does both of
>> > these
>> > things:
>> > (1)? stub out the do_something method (that method has its own specs)
>> > (2)? not stub out the logic in the else statement, (there is some
>> > complex
>> > logic in there involving sql queries on multiple tables and i explicitly
>> > want to make it touch the database so that I can examine the state of
>> > the
>> > database after the method is run in my spec.? a lot of complex stubs
>> > would
>> > be required to do this while also having the spec that is actually
>> > useful)
>>
>> Okay, first off -- I think part of your problem is that your focus is
>> too short. ?It sounds like you're asking how to write different specs
>> for various lines of the _internals_ of this method. ?That's too
>> fine-grained. ?Spec the method from the _outside:_ write specs that
>> say "If I give the method these inputs, this should happen." ?Then
>> test that the end result of the method's execution was what you
>> expect.
>>
>> I'm betting that probably sounds really difficult, given the "complex
>> logic" you're describing. ?And that would be my second, more important
>> tip: if your method is so complicated that you can't spec it from the
>> outside, you should take that as a sign. ?Spaghetti code is usually
>> very hard to spec.
>>
>> Reconsider your problem. ?Try breaking it down into smaller, more
>> easily specified pieces, and then recompose them into the logic that
>> you need. ?I don't know your business rules; it looks to me like the
>> basic task here is "Keep twiddling with the database until I get what
>> I'm looking for, as many times as that takes." ?I don't know why
>> that's necessary, but if it is, recursion doesn't seem like the most
>> elegant answer to me. ?Recursive calls are usually made in small
>> functions that don't have side effects. ?This is the opposite.
>>
>> What would I do instead? ?Again, without knowing your specific
>> business, I'd probably break it into pieces, and then turn the
>> requirement inside out and do it with a loop:
>>
>> def self.find_something(inputs)
>> ?<find something in db based on inputs>
>> end
>>
>> def self.add_something(inputs)
>> ?<add something to db based on inputs>
>> end
>>
>> And then, wherever you *would* have called mymethod(inputs), you can
>> instead write this, which will loop zero or more times:
>>
>> add_something_to_db(inputs) until x = find_something(inputs)
>> x.do_something
>>
>> ...Whether or not you still want to wrap that in a method probably
>> depends on whether you need to call it more than once. ?But I'll bet
>> you that the "add_something" and "find_something" methods are both
>> easier to spec from the outside. ?If they're still too complex, then
>> break them down too.
>>
>>
>> Oh, and final trivia note:
>>
>> > any thoughts on how to accomplish this?? two approaches that would make
>> > sense but don't seem to be possible as far as i know are:
>> > (A)? stub out the do_something method for any instance of the class (i
>> > can't
>> > stub it out for a particular record because the records don't exist at
>> > the
>> > time of calling the method and I'm not stubbing the creation process)
>> > (B) ?stub out "mymethod" only for the second time it is called
>> > (obviously i
>> > can't stub the method out entirely since that's the method i'm testing)
>>
>> You can do both of these with the Mocha mocking library, if you really
>> want to. ?It puts an "any_instance" method on Class that you can use
>> to mock or stub; and you can specify ordered chains of results to
>> return.
>>
>> But again, you shouldn't need to if your methods are atomic enough.
>> If 'do_something' properly belongs outside the scope of what you're
>> testing, then maybe that's a sign that you shouldn't put it in the
>> same block of code. ?And if you find a need to declare that your
>> method should behave entirely differently on a second invocation,
>> maybe it shouldn't be one method.
>>
>> Simplify relentlessly. ?Once I figured out how to make my code
>> simpler, I found that I wasn't mocking nearly as much as I used to.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Have Fun,
>> ? Steve Eley (sfeley at gmail.com)
>> ? ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
>> ? http://www.escapepod.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 21 09:24:30 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:24:30 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] how to spec a recursive method that creates db
	records?
In-Reply-To: <83e853830907210615r143c98c3ma3615aa1f3e15eb3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <83e853830907201733m3619394ck2f75ef1918c4fcc4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fb4df0907202045t632dafa4l7b362a37a8d79f4e@mail.gmail.com>
	<83e853830907202305p476662a4we4ba558bfecbdb90@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0907210249j4f0db9adocec7b25cd9a0fa6c@mail.gmail.com>
	<83e853830907210615r143c98c3ma3615aa1f3e15eb3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907210624pdbf33ffm2eaddb1d31cd3cc4@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Barun Singh<barunio at gmail.com> wrote:
> I completely agree that testability is a huge benefit, and if changing code
> structure makes that easier then I'm all for it.? My statement was only
> meant to imply that I didn't find testability to become any easier by
> refactoring this particular method, and absent that I didn't see any reason
> to split it up.? But if testability is actually improved, I'd be eager to
> make changes appropriately.
>
> I looked over your code in the gist (which, by the way I really appreciate
> you taking the time to write out), but I don't see how this tests the method
> properly.? The result of the else condition is never actually tested.
> Specifically, I thing the tests would all pass, even if
> find_or_add_something looked like this:
>
> ? def self.find_or_add_something(inputs)
> ????if x = self.find_something(inputs)
> ??????x
> ????else
> ??????self.add_something(inputs)
> ????? "blah"
> ??? end
> ??end
> (if it isn't clear, the difference is that I'm not calling find_something in
> the else condition and am instead just returning "blah").
>
> This is because the last test "#find_or_add_something when find something
> returns?nil returns the result of find_something" doesn't actually specify
> that find_something returns nil the first time it is called.? So that last
> spec describes what I want to test but what it actually tests is the same
> thing as "#find_or_add_something when find something returns a Thing returns
> the Thing" [line 39].
>
> At least this is what it seems like to me; if I'm missing something
> glaringly obvious (possible) please do point it out to me.
>
> Hopefully with this concrete example of a set of specs that you've provided
> my question is a bit clearer.

I changed the very last example in the gist so that the first time it
receives find_something it returns nil, then the 2nd time it returns
the thing.

Try again: http://gist.github.com/151226

>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:49 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Barun,
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:05 AM, Barun Singh<barunio at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I certainly appreciate the thoughtful and lengthy reply, but I think it
>> > misses the main part of my problem -- perhaps my original explanation of
>> > my
>> > issue was lacking in clarity.? This isn't a question of refactoring; I
>> > can
>> > easily refactor the method as you describe but this doesn't resolve the
>> > issue (indeed, it just leads to an increased number of public methods in
>> > the
>> > model with no real benefit).
>>
>> You want to know your code works, right? Testability _is_ a real
>> benefit. Obviously everything needs to be balanced, and if you can do
>> things in a pure API, non-invasive way, you're going to end up with a
>> more flexible result. But sometimes we have to make tradeoffs.
>>
>> > So, to more clearly illustrate my question,
>> > forget about my original method and instead let's say I have three
>> > methods
>> > as follows:
>> >
>> > def self.find_something(inputs)
>> > ? .. do stuff here
>> > end
>> >
>> > def self.add_something(inputs)
>> > ? .. do stuff here
>> > end
>> >
>> > def self.find_or_add_something(inputs)
>> > ? x = self.find_something(inputs)
>> > ? if !x
>> > ??? self.add_something(inputs)
>> > ??? x = self.find_something(inputs)
>> > ? end
>> > ? x
>> > end
>> >
>> > I can easily spec the find_something and add_something methods so I know
>> > that they work correctly.? My question is, how do I write a spec for
>> > find_or_add_something in a way where I don't have to re-test the
>> > behavior of
>> > the individual find_something and add_something methods a second time,
>> > and
>> > can just test the overall logic of that method?
>>
>> This is _very_ invasive and brittle, and I'd likely not approach it
>> this way myself, but it works:
>>
>> http://gist.github.com/151226
>>
>> HTH,
>> David
>>
>> >
>> > It's helpful to know that Mocha is available to assist with this, but
>> > I'd
>> > rather not switch to an entirely different framework for mocks & stubs
>> > just
>> > because of this one method...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Stephen Eley <sfeley at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Barun Singh<barunio at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I want to find a way to write a spec for this method that does both
>> >> > of
>> >> > these
>> >> > things:
>> >> > (1)? stub out the do_something method (that method has its own specs)
>> >> > (2)? not stub out the logic in the else statement, (there is some
>> >> > complex
>> >> > logic in there involving sql queries on multiple tables and i
>> >> > explicitly
>> >> > want to make it touch the database so that I can examine the state of
>> >> > the
>> >> > database after the method is run in my spec.? a lot of complex stubs
>> >> > would
>> >> > be required to do this while also having the spec that is actually
>> >> > useful)
>> >>
>> >> Okay, first off -- I think part of your problem is that your focus is
>> >> too short. ?It sounds like you're asking how to write different specs
>> >> for various lines of the _internals_ of this method. ?That's too
>> >> fine-grained. ?Spec the method from the _outside:_ write specs that
>> >> say "If I give the method these inputs, this should happen." ?Then
>> >> test that the end result of the method's execution was what you
>> >> expect.
>> >>
>> >> I'm betting that probably sounds really difficult, given the "complex
>> >> logic" you're describing. ?And that would be my second, more important
>> >> tip: if your method is so complicated that you can't spec it from the
>> >> outside, you should take that as a sign. ?Spaghetti code is usually
>> >> very hard to spec.
>> >>
>> >> Reconsider your problem. ?Try breaking it down into smaller, more
>> >> easily specified pieces, and then recompose them into the logic that
>> >> you need. ?I don't know your business rules; it looks to me like the
>> >> basic task here is "Keep twiddling with the database until I get what
>> >> I'm looking for, as many times as that takes." ?I don't know why
>> >> that's necessary, but if it is, recursion doesn't seem like the most
>> >> elegant answer to me. ?Recursive calls are usually made in small
>> >> functions that don't have side effects. ?This is the opposite.
>> >>
>> >> What would I do instead? ?Again, without knowing your specific
>> >> business, I'd probably break it into pieces, and then turn the
>> >> requirement inside out and do it with a loop:
>> >>
>> >> def self.find_something(inputs)
>> >> ?<find something in db based on inputs>
>> >> end
>> >>
>> >> def self.add_something(inputs)
>> >> ?<add something to db based on inputs>
>> >> end
>> >>
>> >> And then, wherever you *would* have called mymethod(inputs), you can
>> >> instead write this, which will loop zero or more times:
>> >>
>> >> add_something_to_db(inputs) until x = find_something(inputs)
>> >> x.do_something
>> >>
>> >> ...Whether or not you still want to wrap that in a method probably
>> >> depends on whether you need to call it more than once. ?But I'll bet
>> >> you that the "add_something" and "find_something" methods are both
>> >> easier to spec from the outside. ?If they're still too complex, then
>> >> break them down too.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Oh, and final trivia note:
>> >>
>> >> > any thoughts on how to accomplish this?? two approaches that would
>> >> > make
>> >> > sense but don't seem to be possible as far as i know are:
>> >> > (A)? stub out the do_something method for any instance of the class
>> >> > (i
>> >> > can't
>> >> > stub it out for a particular record because the records don't exist
>> >> > at
>> >> > the
>> >> > time of calling the method and I'm not stubbing the creation process)
>> >> > (B) ?stub out "mymethod" only for the second time it is called
>> >> > (obviously i
>> >> > can't stub the method out entirely since that's the method i'm
>> >> > testing)
>> >>
>> >> You can do both of these with the Mocha mocking library, if you really
>> >> want to. ?It puts an "any_instance" method on Class that you can use
>> >> to mock or stub; and you can specify ordered chains of results to
>> >> return.
>> >>
>> >> But again, you shouldn't need to if your methods are atomic enough.
>> >> If 'do_something' properly belongs outside the scope of what you're
>> >> testing, then maybe that's a sign that you shouldn't put it in the
>> >> same block of code. ?And if you find a need to declare that your
>> >> method should behave entirely differently on a second invocation,
>> >> maybe it shouldn't be one method.
>> >>
>> >> Simplify relentlessly. ?Once I figured out how to make my code
>> >> simpler, I found that I wasn't mocking nearly as much as I used to.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Have Fun,
>> >> ? Steve Eley (sfeley at gmail.com)
>> >> ? ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
>> >> ? http://www.escapepod.org
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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 sfeley at gmail.com  Tue Jul 21 10:22:09 2009
From: sfeley at gmail.com (Stephen Eley)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:22:09 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] how to spec a recursive method that creates db
	records?
In-Reply-To: <83e853830907210018o75ffbe7u673cfcdb16744e03@mail.gmail.com>
References: <83e853830907201733m3619394ck2f75ef1918c4fcc4@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fb4df0907202045t632dafa4l7b362a37a8d79f4e@mail.gmail.com>
	<83e853830907202305p476662a4we4ba558bfecbdb90@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fb4df0907202331r69d3edebt2d1e02bda70f4817@mail.gmail.com>
	<83e853830907210018o75ffbe7u673cfcdb16744e03@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1fb4df0907210722o5540ce62xf90810d1ceb9a0d2@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Barun Singh<barunio at gmail.com> wrote:
> I get your point, and I already understood it well before my original
> email.? We all know that generic advice isn't always applicable in every
> instance, however, and this is a case where the number of distinct specs
> required to test all input combinations that are of interest is simply too
> large to make it worth doing if I don't use stubs at all.

That's the kind of problem I like to avoid.  My experience is that it
can _usually_ be avoided by reexamining something up the chain.
Sometimes the method can be turned into a class, or the data model can
be restructured, or the business rules that make it overly complex
aren't as inflexible as I first thought they were.  Not always --
sometimes we really do have to work with what we're given, and what
we're given is a mess.  That may be your case, but you didn't give
enough information for me _not_ to raise "Look at the big picture" as
a possibility.

If that's really the case, though, then the kind of testing you need
to do on this algorithm changes.  "A bunch of pieces with complex
states need to work together" feels more like an integration test to
me than a unit test.  And I don't understand how stubbing helps you
get better integration test coverage.  Stubbing means locking down the
state of something.  If you stub something internal to your code,
you're no longer testing cases for states your stub doesn't return.
If those cases matter during 'black box' testing, but you don't hit
them when you abstract something out, you've just created a gap.  (And
if you *do* hit them despite abstracting out, then why do you need the
code that got stubbed?)



> It's obviously hyperbolic and a bit
> silly to suggest that stubbing out a public method from one of my models in
> order to simplify a spec would lead to stubbing "every method call inside
> every method".? You might as well argue that a person should never stub
> anything in any spec.

You're right that I was hyperbolic.  But I treat it as a red flag if I
feel a need to stub code I've already written in the same class or
module as what I'm testing.  I usually stub for two reasons:

1.) As a design placeholder for stuff I haven't written yet (and I
take those stubs out after I've written them); or
2.) As a placeholder for *external* interface points to services,
libraries, or functional spheres that I need to couple with but don't
want to get highly entangled with.  Stubbing improves speed for slow
stuff, but it also compels me to keep my interactions simple.
(Examples: stubbing out results from a SOAP service, or stubbing out
"current_user" on controller specs.)

I do a lot more mocking, but usually just to confirm that particular
side effects were triggered.  (And again: I take having to do it as a
cue to at least consider whether I can write the code in a way that
minimizes side effects.)

I'm not trying to be an ass about this.  I think this is a good
conversation.  You know your problem domain better than I do, and
you're clearly not a novice at this stuff.  But telling me "Thanks,
but you're wrong" when you didn't say a lot about the problem domain
makes it hard to be helpful.


> My statement of the refactored methods being public was predicated on the
> assumption that I would be stubbing them out (I don't stub private methods),
> since there's no other useful reason to refactor in this instance (the code
> isn't hard to read, I don't need to reuse any of it elsewhere, and if I
> don't stub them out in testing the outer method then refactoring hasn't made
> any tests any easier either).

But a useful reason to refactor *did* come up.  Your subject line for
this thread was about how to spec a recursive method.  You've had
several demonstrations of ways to make spec'ing easier by not
recursing.  Your second block of code, with "add_something" and
"find_something," is more readable *and* more testable, whether or not
you stub.

That's a win, right?

-- 
Have Fun,
   Steve Eley (sfeley at gmail.com)
   ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
   http://www.escapepod.org

From chris at silhouettesolutions.net  Tue Jul 21 11:25:25 2009
From: chris at silhouettesolutions.net (internetchris)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] My very fist spec file (not sure what's wrong..)
In-Reply-To: <1fb4df0907202059g38d5a900u2c996adea177acb9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <381c5397-1df9-4830-b07e-19364fd8324d@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<1fb4df0907202059g38d5a900u2c996adea177acb9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16720437-4bdd-4552-8c22-58bc523be059@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>

Ben that worked perfectly I appreciate the help.

Stephen, I appreciate the encouragement, it feels daunting to be
learning all of this at once, but each day I bite off a little more
understanding.  It's funny you mention scuba diving - "way back when"
right out of high school I thought it would be fun to go to school for
underwater construction/welding - so I did. I suppose if I was able to
tackle that, I will eventually get this. I'm thankful I decided to
switch my degree path to computer science after that however. It was
an interesting part of my life to say the least. Maybe it's a
personality quirk of mine :-)

Thanks!

Chris


On Jul 20, 9:59?pm, Stephen Eley <sfe... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Chris
>
> Sund<ch... at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
>
> > I am finally to the point in the rspec book where it describes how to
> > implement controller specs, so I thought what the heck, I'll give it a
> > try.
>
> Heh. ?Points to you for ambition! ?You might not have realized this
> (because the RSpec book makes it sound like it should *all* be easy)
> but starting with a Rails controller spec for your very first spec is
> a bit like saying "I was thinking of getting scuba certified...
> Ooooh, CAVE DIVING! ?Let's start with that first!"*
>
> On the upside, if you start there and really get to *understand*
> what's going on, you should be relieved when most of the rest of it is
> pretty smooth sailing. ?There are very few common Ruby idioms that
> have such tight coupling as Rails controllers, so very few tasks are
> so hard to spec in isolation. ?You'll almost never have to mock
> anything else as ferociously. ?Model specs in particular will feel
> like sunshine and puppies.
>
> So go you!
>
> --
> Have Fun, ?*(Granted, I don't think anyone has ever kicked up silt
> while writing a controller spec, lost hold of their guide line, gotten
> hopelessly lost, and died many hours later in the cold and dark. ?Yet.
> ?That only happens to J2EE programmers.)
> ? ?Steve Eley (sfe... at gmail.com)
> ? ?ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
> ? ?http://www.escapepod.org
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From celoserpa at gmail.com  Tue Jul 21 11:56:37 2009
From: celoserpa at gmail.com (Marcelo de Moraes Serpa)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:56:37 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Cucumber step or model spec?
In-Reply-To: <CFA9CA7E-6E10-4784-A271-2B4EAD615612@parkerhill.com>
References: <1e5bcefd0907201530p532cb5b9ra447bf7a57a367ca@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0907201558x3f25612fg982f5cf4b65bd48@mail.gmail.com>
	<CFA9CA7E-6E10-4784-A271-2B4EAD615612@parkerhill.com>
Message-ID: <1e5bcefd0907210856i3695648cw29699f5fd42fe7a2@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you all for the replies!

>I use Cucumber for specifying application behaviour and RSpec for
>specifying lower level component behaviour. In the scenario you
>describe:
>* the application's job is to show only the active products
>* the view's job is to display any products it is given by the controller
>* the controller's job is to ask the model for the active products
>* the model's job is to supply only the active products

This was the most useful piece of information I've seen lately. I
think I was still not thinking with this behaviour mindset, and asking
this question -- "what is the responsibility/job of the controller in
this context" really helped me to find out that the controller's job
is to ask the model for the data, and this is exactly what I need to
spec -- if he is sending the right message and setting the right
variables.

By the way, great work on the rspec book, it has been really helping
me to master the art of BDD, along with your tireless support here in
the mailing list. Thanks a lot for the support!

Regards,

Marcelo.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Jonathan
Linowes<jonathan at parkerhill.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 20, 2009, at 6:58 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> So for me this is not an either/or question. Each underlying component
>> has a responsibility, and the result of the three components doing the
>> right thing adds up to the application behaving correctly.
>
> I'd also add that, for me, the cucumber story tends to exercise the more
> "typical" cases whereas my specs are more thorough in covering edge cases
> and exceptions.
>
> linoj
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jul 21 14:57:41 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:57:41 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Rspec Rails 1.2.7.1
In-Reply-To: <5a24fdec0907211151r68c91d88sbd08440382f4be41@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5a24fdec0907211151r68c91d88sbd08440382f4be41@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907211157w173f3582k8ad734d7509ca67f@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Peer Allan<peer at bipolarsoftware.ca> wrote:
> Hello all,
> Trying to update to rspec 1.2.8, but I keep getting rspec-rails 1.2.7.1, is
> that what I should be expecting?

There were no updates to rspec-rails, so the current releases are
rspec-rails-1.2.7.1 and rspec-1.2.8.

Cheers,
David

> Peer

From mpd at particularplace.com  Tue Jul 21 14:14:25 2009
From: mpd at particularplace.com (mpd)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] [RAILS] - 2.3.3 creating a sea of red
Message-ID: <d1415729-2634-4145-a7bf-e956820bf114@i8g2000pro.googlegroups.com>

hello,

I've already asked via Rails channels on this and have received no
response, so I'm asking here in hopes someone has run into something
similar.

I updated to rails 2.3.3 yesterday, and now all of my specs are
failing with the following error:

Fixture::FormatError in 'PublishedGallery Methods#thumbnail should
delegate to its lead asset'
a YAML error occurred parsing /Users/mpd/timber/spec/fixtures/
galleries.yml. Please note that YAML must be consistently indented
using spaces. Tabs are not allowed. Please have a look at
http://www.yaml.org/faq.html
The exact error was:
  NoMethodError: undefined method `abstract_class?' for Object:Class

A full stack trace (and other info like the list of system gems) is
available at: http://gist.github.com/151492

The real problem has nothing to do with YAML. I can go green right now
by changing RAILS_GEM_VERSION in environment.rb back to 2.3.2.

I'm sure this is due to some Rails change, but I can't find any info
about it. Only running my specs is broken, both via rake and the spec
command. I can use script/console with both test and development
environments with no problems, and the app looks to be running fine.
It just looks like a load-order problem somewhere, but I'm not sure
where to start debugging.

thanks



From vagostino at gmail.com  Tue Jul 21 14:00:44 2009
From: vagostino at gmail.com (Val)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] "Cucumber database is not configured" error
Message-ID: <f07fbe71-6656-4ff7-b5bb-7edb21eef27b@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>

Hi,

Hoping someone can help me out here.  Whenever I try to run cucumber
features I keep getting an error that "cucumber database is not
configured".  Stack trace is below.

Here's some background info:
* I can successfully run all features on a different computer.  This
error is being generated on my laptop (same code base via git), so I
suspect that it's a gem/configuration problem and not a problem with
my project code.
* Using cucumber 0.3.11, rspec 1.2.7
* Have removed and reinstalled all rspec/cucumber gems and
dependencies following wiki instructions multiple times, with no
remedy
* Can run full rspec suite fine
* Have dropped and recreated test database

I've googled around and not found anything referencing this error, so
hope someone can help me track it down.

Thanks!
Val

cucumber database is not configured
(ActiveRecord::AdapterNotSpecified)
/usr/local/src/thrivebaby/vendor/rails/activerecord/lib/active_record/
connection_adapters/abstract/connection_specification.rb:62:in
`establish_connection'
/usr/local/src/thrivebaby/vendor/rails/activerecord/lib/active_record/
connection_adapters/abstract/connection_specification.rb:55:in
`establish_connection'
/usr/local/src/thrivebaby/config/../vendor/rails/railties/lib/
initializer.rb:417:in `initialize_database'
/usr/local/src/thrivebaby/config/../vendor/rails/railties/lib/
initializer.rb:141:in `process'
/usr/local/src/thrivebaby/config/../vendor/rails/railties/lib/
initializer.rb:113:in `send'
/usr/local/src/thrivebaby/config/../vendor/rails/railties/lib/
initializer.rb:113:in `run'
/usr/local/src/thrivebaby/config/environment.rb:10
/Library/Ruby/Site/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in
`gem_original_require'
/Library/Ruby/Site/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in
`polyglot_original_require'
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/polyglot-0.2.6/lib/polyglot.rb:55:in
`require'
./features/support/env.rb:3
/Library/Ruby/Site/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in
`gem_original_require'
/Library/Ruby/Site/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in
`polyglot_original_require'
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/polyglot-0.2.6/lib/polyglot.rb:55:in
`require'
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.11/bin/../lib/cucumber/cli/
main.rb:95:in `require_files'
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.11/bin/../lib/cucumber/cli/
main.rb:104:in `each_lib'
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.11/bin/../lib/cucumber/cli/
main.rb:102:in `each'
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.11/bin/../lib/cucumber/cli/
main.rb:102:in `each_lib'
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.11/bin/../lib/cucumber/cli/
main.rb:95:in `require_files'
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.11/bin/../lib/cucumber/cli/
main.rb:47:in `execute!'
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.11/bin/../lib/cucumber/cli/
main.rb:25:in `execute'
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.11/bin/cucumber:9
/usr/bin/cucumber:19:in `load'
/usr/bin/cucumber:19


From tom at experthuman.com  Tue Jul 21 15:58:22 2009
From: tom at experthuman.com (Tom Stuart)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:58:22 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Loading (or stubbing) data before model loading
Message-ID: <B762B52D-350C-48CF-87D9-19B9B4BB21A0@experthuman.com>

Hi,

A Rails project I'm working on has, for better or worse, some data- 
driven structure in its models: a few model classes need certain  
values (e.g. some enumerations) to be available in the database at  
load time in order for certain bits of metaprogramming to kick off  
correctly. It would be possible to do this all lazily instead of when  
the classes load, but in reality the database values are always there  
and everything already works beautifully so it's hard to justify  
putting in the effort required to be that lazy.

The problem is that RSpec starts with an empty test database and I  
can't see the best way or place to prepopulate it before the models  
get loaded (i.e. when Rails bootstraps, since config.cache_classes =  
true), ideally so that both rake spec and script/spec do the correct  
setup in time. It would be incredibly convenient to be able to use  
Fixtures.create_fixtures to do the loading so that the required data  
can live in YAML fixtures, but maybe it's optimistic to try to do that  
before Rails has loaded.

Or maybe I'm just going about this completely the wrong way, and  
someone has a clever idea about what the right way is? That would be  
brilliant.

Cheers,
-Tom

From chris at silhouettesolutions.net  Tue Jul 21 19:02:58 2009
From: chris at silhouettesolutions.net (internetchris)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] My very fist spec file (not sure what's wrong..)
In-Reply-To: <16720437-4bdd-4552-8c22-58bc523be059@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
References: <381c5397-1df9-4830-b07e-19364fd8324d@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<1fb4df0907202059g38d5a900u2c996adea177acb9@mail.gmail.com> 
	<16720437-4bdd-4552-8c22-58bc523be059@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <fd74e933-9178-4939-89cb-b75e658acc8e@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>

I have one additional question after thinking about this for a while.
Forgive me if I'm about to read this in the book, It came to mind so I
thought I would ask. When writing specs for controllers am I always
going to mock the model? Are controllers always isolated from the
actual model? If that's the case then using cucumber with webrat is
the only time I will test the complete stack right? Just wondering if
I understand this correctly.

Thanks

Chris

On Jul 21, 9:25?am, internetchris <ch... at silhouettesolutions.net>
wrote:
> Ben that worked perfectly I appreciate the help.
>
> Stephen, I appreciate the encouragement, it feels daunting to be
> learning all of this at once, but each day I bite off a little more
> understanding. ?It's funny you mention scuba diving - "way back when"
> right out of high school I thought it would be fun to go to school for
> underwater construction/welding - so I did. I suppose if I was able to
> tackle that, I will eventually get this. I'm thankful I decided to
> switch my degree path to computer science after that however. It was
> an interesting part of my life to say the least. Maybe it's a
> personality quirk of mine :-)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Chris
>
> On Jul 20, 9:59?pm, Stephen Eley <sfe... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Chris
>
> > Sund<ch... at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
>
> > > I am finally to the point in the rspec book where it describes how to
> > > implement controller specs, so I thought what the heck, I'll give it a
> > > try.
>
> > Heh. ?Points to you for ambition! ?You might not have realized this
> > (because the RSpec book makes it sound like it should *all* be easy)
> > but starting with a Rails controller spec for your very first spec is
> > a bit like saying "I was thinking of getting scuba certified...
> > Ooooh, CAVE DIVING! ?Let's start with that first!"*
>
> > On the upside, if you start there and really get to *understand*
> > what's going on, you should be relieved when most of the rest of it is
> > pretty smooth sailing. ?There are very few common Ruby idioms that
> > have such tight coupling as Rails controllers, so very few tasks are
> > so hard to spec in isolation. ?You'll almost never have to mock
> > anything else as ferociously. ?Model specs in particular will feel
> > like sunshine and puppies.
>
> > So go you!
>
> > --
> > Have Fun, ?*(Granted, I don't think anyone has ever kicked up silt
> > while writing a controller spec, lost hold of their guide line, gotten
> > hopelessly lost, and died many hours later in the cold and dark. ?Yet.
> > ?That only happens to J2EE programmers.)
> > ? ?Steve Eley (sfe... at gmail.com)
> > ? ?ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
> > ? ?http://www.escapepod.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From ben at benmabey.com  Tue Jul 21 21:55:00 2009
From: ben at benmabey.com (Ben Mabey)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:55:00 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] My very fist spec file (not sure what's wrong..)
In-Reply-To: <fd74e933-9178-4939-89cb-b75e658acc8e@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
References: <381c5397-1df9-4830-b07e-19364fd8324d@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>	<1fb4df0907202059g38d5a900u2c996adea177acb9@mail.gmail.com>
	<16720437-4bdd-4552-8c22-58bc523be059@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<fd74e933-9178-4939-89cb-b75e658acc8e@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <4A667174.2000901@benmabey.com>

internetchris wrote:
> I have one additional question after thinking about this for a while.
> Forgive me if I'm about to read this in the book, It came to mind so I
> thought I would ask. When writing specs for controllers am I always
> going to mock the model? Are controllers always isolated from the
> actual model? If that's the case then using cucumber with webrat is
> the only time I will test the complete stack right? Just wondering if
> I understand this correctly.
>   

When I am using Cucumber and writing controller specs that is always how 
*I* do it.  I like having the isolation for the controllers and keeping 
them fast.  Any integration problems will be exposed by Cucumber so I 
think having the controller specs test more that the controller is a 
waste in most cases.  This is just my opinion however.  People on this 
list will agree with me and disagree, so don't think that it is *the* 
way of doing things.  This is what the book recommends IIRC so you are 
understanding it.

-Ben

> Thanks
>
> Chris
>
> On Jul 21, 9:25 am, internetchris <ch... at silhouettesolutions.net>
> wrote:
>   
>> Ben that worked perfectly I appreciate the help.
>>
>> Stephen, I appreciate the encouragement, it feels daunting to be
>> learning all of this at once, but each day I bite off a little more
>> understanding.  It's funny you mention scuba diving - "way back when"
>> right out of high school I thought it would be fun to go to school for
>> underwater construction/welding - so I did. I suppose if I was able to
>> tackle that, I will eventually get this. I'm thankful I decided to
>> switch my degree path to computer science after that however. It was
>> an interesting part of my life to say the least. Maybe it's a
>> personality quirk of mine :-)
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On Jul 20, 9:59 pm, Stephen Eley <sfe... at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Chris
>>>       
>>> Sund<ch... at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> I am finally to the point in the rspec book where it describes how to
>>>> implement controller specs, so I thought what the heck, I'll give it a
>>>> try.
>>>>         
>>> Heh.  Points to you for ambition!  You might not have realized this
>>> (because the RSpec book makes it sound like it should *all* be easy)
>>> but starting with a Rails controller spec for your very first spec is
>>> a bit like saying "I was thinking of getting scuba certified...
>>> Ooooh, CAVE DIVING!  Let's start with that first!"*
>>>       
>>> On the upside, if you start there and really get to *understand*
>>> what's going on, you should be relieved when most of the rest of it is
>>> pretty smooth sailing.  There are very few common Ruby idioms that
>>> have such tight coupling as Rails controllers, so very few tasks are
>>> so hard to spec in isolation.  You'll almost never have to mock
>>> anything else as ferociously.  Model specs in particular will feel
>>> like sunshine and puppies.
>>>       
>>> So go you!
>>>       
>>> --
>>> Have Fun,  *(Granted, I don't think anyone has ever kicked up silt
>>> while writing a controller spec, lost hold of their guide line, gotten
>>> hopelessly lost, and died many hours later in the cold and dark.  Yet.
>>>  That only happens to J2EE programmers.)
>>>    Steve Eley (sfe... at gmail.com)
>>>    ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
>>>    http://www.escapepod.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rspec-users mailing list
>>> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>   


From sfeley at gmail.com  Tue Jul 21 23:43:35 2009
From: sfeley at gmail.com (Stephen Eley)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:43:35 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] My very fist spec file (not sure what's wrong..)
In-Reply-To: <fd74e933-9178-4939-89cb-b75e658acc8e@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
References: <381c5397-1df9-4830-b07e-19364fd8324d@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<1fb4df0907202059g38d5a900u2c996adea177acb9@mail.gmail.com>
	<16720437-4bdd-4552-8c22-58bc523be059@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<fd74e933-9178-4939-89cb-b75e658acc8e@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <1fb4df0907212043t279cbeacu26777b29d332bb@mail.gmail.com>

2009/7/21 internetchris <chris at silhouettesolutions.net>:
> When writing specs for controllers am I always
> going to mock the model? Are controllers always isolated from the
> actual model?

Hi Chris,

Pretty insightful of you.  This is one of those philosophical
questions that tends to keep coming up.  The only valid answer to it
is "YMMV" -- everyone seems to have a different comfort level with how
this is done.

David Chelimsky advocates strong isolation and full model mocking for
controller specs.  That's why you see it in the RSpec book and the
official RSpec site.  Yehuda Katz pushes a more integrated approach of
spec'ing the *request* from soup to nuts rather than the controller's
code base; you can see that in Merb's testing helpers, or in this
video from last year's RubyConf:
http://rubyconf2008.confreaks.com/writing-code-that-doesnt-suck.html

Both schools of thought have pros and cons, and both camps have their
followers.  And then some people take an approach somewhere in the
middle, or use Cucumber exclusively, or use macro frameworks like
Shoulda or mock_resourceful, or do their own thing, or just throw up
their hands and don't test controller flow at all.

Having said that -- I'll tell you what *I* do.  I used to spec
everything.  When I was learning RSpec I was quite zealous about it,
and I think that was a good experence. These days, though, I skip
specs for most of my controllers and declare the integration in
Cucumber features instead. I won't say that I *never* write controller
specs, but if I do it's usually because that controller does something
unusual.  Maybe it pulls in a couple of different models, or it needs
to reply to "/login" instead of the default "person_sessions/new" or
it has a filter to load tabs.  I'll spec that sort of interesting
behavior.  If it's just a straight, looks-like-scaffold-code REST
controller, I usually don't spec it.  And I certainly don't write
stubs for it.

My typical feeling is that all that stubbing to set up controller
isolation is a lot of work for small risk.  90% of all Rails
controllers are pretty nearly identical to each other, and the "cookie
cutter" RESTful controller model is simple, well-understood and
thoroughly tested in the Rails core code.  If it does break on me it's
probably because I made some sort of dependency error, like forgetting
to declare the route or using the wrong path in my views.  That sort
of thing turns up in my integration testing (i.e. my Cucumber
features) and is always pretty easy to spot and fix.  I don't really
gain anything by writing specs for generic execution paths that are
already tested in Rails itself.

That's my approach.  I'm not going to claim it's the _best_ -- just
that it's where my comfort level is right now.  The way I do things
has changed before, and it will probably change again.  You'll find
your own way of doing things too; and that's a Good Thing.

In the meantime, you can't really lose by following the steps from the
RSpec Book as you're starting out.  Even if you do decide that it's
too much overhead later on, having had the practice and developed the
discipline will help you to make smart decisions and develop your own
effective style.



-- 
Have Fun,
   Steve Eley (sfeley at gmail.com)
   ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
   http://www.escapepod.org

From sfeley at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 00:06:51 2009
From: sfeley at gmail.com (Stephen Eley)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:06:51 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] [RAILS] - 2.3.3 creating a sea of red
In-Reply-To: <d1415729-2634-4145-a7bf-e956820bf114@i8g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
References: <d1415729-2634-4145-a7bf-e956820bf114@i8g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <1fb4df0907212106s77e277c4o252ae7299afc25d6@mail.gmail.com>

2009/7/21 mpd <mpd at particularplace.com>:
>
> I'm sure this is due to some Rails change, but I can't find any info
> about it. Only running my specs is broken, both via rake and the spec
> command. I can use script/console with both test and development
> environments with no problems, and the app looks to be running fine.
> It just looks like a load-order problem somewhere, but I'm not sure
> where to start debugging.

I can't really help, except to say that I'm also running Rails 2.3.3
and I'm *not* seeing this error.   I'm not running fixtures, however
(I use Machinist) so that might help you pin it down.  Also, grepping
for the "abstract_class?" method shows that it's defined in
ActiveRecord::Base.  You might try diffing between 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 on
whatever code loads fixtures for test cases; it might be that 2.3.3
does fixtures a little bit differently or something.


-- 
Have Fun,
   Steve Eley (sfeley at gmail.com)
   ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
   http://www.escapepod.org

From chris at silhouettesolutions.net  Wed Jul 22 00:36:50 2009
From: chris at silhouettesolutions.net (internetchris)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:36:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] My very fist spec file (not sure what's wrong..)
In-Reply-To: <1fb4df0907212043t279cbeacu26777b29d332bb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <381c5397-1df9-4830-b07e-19364fd8324d@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<1fb4df0907202059g38d5a900u2c996adea177acb9@mail.gmail.com> 
	<16720437-4bdd-4552-8c22-58bc523be059@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> 
	<fd74e933-9178-4939-89cb-b75e658acc8e@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> 
	<1fb4df0907212043t279cbeacu26777b29d332bb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9c0ebd2f-80ce-4a9c-baf8-5308070d4eea@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>

Hey guys,

I appreciate the insight, and this brings me to my next question, and
actually the next chapter in the book (specing models). I read that
"most" developers shy away from view specs (for the most part - not
always), and then if I understand both of you correctly....each of you
tend to "do as little" with controller specs as absolutely necessary.
So if that's the case is the main use of rspec within a rails app for
the model and validation testing? I'm sure I will gain a little more
insight on this as I progress into the next chapter, but it begged to
be asked. In fact it's probably too much of a sweeping statement. As I
think about this a little more I can see how each of these "little"
things that rspec is used for add up to some major tools to help
ensure good solid code. Just the re-factoring element which is more a
philosophy than it is an actual syntactical element makes for nice DRY
systems.

I guess this is more of a rhetorical post, but if someone wants to add
their two cents go ahead. I have been taking my time through the Rspec
book making sure I understand each element. I'm forcing myself to
"really" understand it so I can develop better apps.

Thanks again!

Chris



On Jul 21, 9:43?pm, Stephen Eley <sfe... at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/7/21 internetchris <ch... at silhouettesolutions.net>:
>
> > When writing specs for controllers am I always
> > going to mock the model? Are controllers always isolated from the
> > actual model?
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Pretty insightful of you. ?This is one of those philosophical
> questions that tends to keep coming up. ?The only valid answer to it
> is "YMMV" -- everyone seems to have a different comfort level with how
> this is done.
>
> David Chelimsky advocates strong isolation and full model mocking for
> controller specs. ?That's why you see it in the RSpec book and the
> official RSpec site. ?Yehuda Katz pushes a more integrated approach of
> spec'ing the *request* from soup to nuts rather than the controller's
> code base; you can see that in Merb's testing helpers, or in this
> video from last year's RubyConf:http://rubyconf2008.confreaks.com/writing-code-that-doesnt-suck.html
>
> Both schools of thought have pros and cons, and both camps have their
> followers. ?And then some people take an approach somewhere in the
> middle, or use Cucumber exclusively, or use macro frameworks like
> Shoulda or mock_resourceful, or do their own thing, or just throw up
> their hands and don't test controller flow at all.
>
> Having said that -- I'll tell you what *I* do. ?I used to spec
> everything. ?When I was learning RSpec I was quite zealous about it,
> and I think that was a good experence. These days, though, I skip
> specs for most of my controllers and declare the integration in
> Cucumber features instead. I won't say that I *never* write controller
> specs, but if I do it's usually because that controller does something
> unusual. ?Maybe it pulls in a couple of different models, or it needs
> to reply to "/login" instead of the default "person_sessions/new" or
> it has a filter to load tabs. ?I'll spec that sort of interesting
> behavior. ?If it's just a straight, looks-like-scaffold-code REST
> controller, I usually don't spec it. ?And I certainly don't write
> stubs for it.
>
> My typical feeling is that all that stubbing to set up controller
> isolation is a lot of work for small risk. ?90% of all Rails
> controllers are pretty nearly identical to each other, and the "cookie
> cutter" RESTful controller model is simple, well-understood and
> thoroughly tested in the Rails core code. ?If it does break on me it's
> probably because I made some sort of dependency error, like forgetting
> to declare the route or using the wrong path in my views. ?That sort
> of thing turns up in my integration testing (i.e. my Cucumber
> features) and is always pretty easy to spot and fix. ?I don't really
> gain anything by writing specs for generic execution paths that are
> already tested in Rails itself.
>
> That's my approach. ?I'm not going to claim it's the _best_ -- just
> that it's where my comfort level is right now. ?The way I do things
> has changed before, and it will probably change again. ?You'll find
> your own way of doing things too; and that's a Good Thing.
>
> In the meantime, you can't really lose by following the steps from the
> RSpec Book as you're starting out. ?Even if you do decide that it's
> too much overhead later on, having had the practice and developed the
> discipline will help you to make smart decisions and develop your own
> effective style.
>
> --
> Have Fun,
> ? ?Steve Eley (sfe... at gmail.com)
> ? ?ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
> ? ?http://www.escapepod.org
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From amkirwan at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 00:21:10 2009
From: amkirwan at gmail.com (amkirwan)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:21:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] collection-based finder methods
Message-ID: <1b4cae23-0005-4d10-8233-a0b10c071941@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>

How do I spec this following example from the Agile Rails Book listed
below. I am doing a similar thing in my controller and when I
attempted to change it to the collection way of doing the find I am
unable to get my spec to pass though I know it is working fine as my
cucumber features are passing

old rails way:

def show
@order = Order.find(params[:id])
end

new rails way collection-based:

def show
id = params[:id]
@order = @user.orders.find(id)
rescue
redirect_to :action => "index"
end

From sfeley at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 01:15:35 2009
From: sfeley at gmail.com (Stephen Eley)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:15:35 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] My very fist spec file (not sure what's wrong..)
In-Reply-To: <9c0ebd2f-80ce-4a9c-baf8-5308070d4eea@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
References: <381c5397-1df9-4830-b07e-19364fd8324d@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<1fb4df0907202059g38d5a900u2c996adea177acb9@mail.gmail.com>
	<16720437-4bdd-4552-8c22-58bc523be059@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<fd74e933-9178-4939-89cb-b75e658acc8e@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
	<1fb4df0907212043t279cbeacu26777b29d332bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<9c0ebd2f-80ce-4a9c-baf8-5308070d4eea@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <1fb4df0907212215i3b0aabf6v60b6aa3ea106f339@mail.gmail.com>

2009/7/22 internetchris <chris at silhouettesolutions.net>:
>
> So if that's the case is the main use of rspec within a rails app for
> the model and validation testing?

For a lot of people, yes.  It's certainly a fair generalization that
model specs are the easiest and most straightforward specs in Rails.
If you're applying MVC well, most of the "interesting" stuff should be
in the models anyway -- that's where your business logic ought to
live.  The fundamental work that gives your app a reason to exist.  It
so happens that business rules are also easier to specify than HTML
interfaces (views) or interface setup and dispatching code
(controllers).  So it tends to attract more testing focus.

There are a lot of ways to strike a good balance, though.  And adding
Cucumber and Webrat (and maybe Selenium, Celerity, Javascript test
frameworks, etc.) to the mix makes for even more variations.  "There
are nine-and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays..."

Best of luck to you.


Have Fun, ("And--every--single--one--of--them--is--RIGHT!")
   Steve Eley (sfeley at gmail.com)
   ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
   http://www.escapepod.org

From matt at mattwynne.net  Wed Jul 22 07:50:16 2009
From: matt at mattwynne.net (Matt Wynne)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:50:16 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] how i can spec session variable in controller
	spec?
In-Reply-To: <6c9653a80907212336n6cffe7d7m5c05c3a08e90045b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6c9653a80907212336n6cffe7d7m5c05c3a08e90045b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3CB96070-E4A2-4219-B37B-38628E779989@mattwynne.net>


On 22 Jul 2009, at 07:36, Dhwani Panchal wrote:

> Hello There,
>
> Can i spec session variable in my controller spec?

Yes:
http://rspec.info/rails/writing/controllers.html

cheers,
Matt Wynne

http://mattwynne.net
+447974 430184


From matt at mattwynne.net  Wed Jul 22 08:13:48 2009
From: matt at mattwynne.net (Matt Wynne)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:13:48 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Loading (or stubbing) data before model loading
In-Reply-To: <B762B52D-350C-48CF-87D9-19B9B4BB21A0@experthuman.com>
References: <B762B52D-350C-48CF-87D9-19B9B4BB21A0@experthuman.com>
Message-ID: <D4EF53F9-D5F7-4B4E-8C60-3D49517F6EB7@mattwynne.net>


On 21 Jul 2009, at 20:58, Tom Stuart wrote:

> Hi,
>
> A Rails project I'm working on has, for better or worse, some data- 
> driven structure in its models: a few model classes need certain  
> values (e.g. some enumerations) to be available in the database at  
> load time in order for certain bits of metaprogramming to kick off  
> correctly. It would be possible to do this all lazily instead of  
> when the classes load, but in reality the database values are always  
> there and everything already works beautifully so it's hard to  
> justify putting in the effort required to be that lazy.
>
> The problem is that RSpec starts with an empty test database and I  
> can't see the best way or place to prepopulate it before the models  
> get loaded (i.e. when Rails bootstraps, since config.cache_classes =  
> true), ideally so that both rake spec and script/spec do the correct  
> setup in time. It would be incredibly convenient to be able to use  
> Fixtures.create_fixtures to do the loading so that the required data  
> can live in YAML fixtures, but maybe it's optimistic to try to do  
> that before Rails has loaded.
>
> Or maybe I'm just going about this completely the wrong way, and  
> someone has a clever idea about what the right way is? That would be  
> brilliant.

One challenge for you before we dig into how to solve it the way  
you've suggested: do you really need to keep these enumerables in the  
database, or could you keep them in code? That is, is there a valid  
use case where they will be altered at run-time, or do they change so  
seldom that it would be OK to have to release a new version of the  
code when they need to be changed?

I ask because these things tend to get a lot easier if you're not  
having to mess around with databases, so it's always worth pushing  
back on that one first.

cheers,
Matt Wynne

http://mattwynne.net
+447974 430184


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 08:57:59 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:57:59 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Loading (or stubbing) data before model loading
In-Reply-To: <B762B52D-350C-48CF-87D9-19B9B4BB21A0@experthuman.com>
References: <B762B52D-350C-48CF-87D9-19B9B4BB21A0@experthuman.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907220557o2e9475e3ra80f5ce109550693@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Tom Stuart<tom at experthuman.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A Rails project I'm working on has, for better or worse, some data-driven
> structure in its models: a few model classes need certain values (e.g. some
> enumerations) to be available in the database at load time in order for
> certain bits of metaprogramming to kick off correctly. It would be possible
> to do this all lazily instead of when the classes load, but in reality the
> database values are always there and everything already works beautifully so
> it's hard to justify putting in the effort required to be that lazy.
>
> The problem is that RSpec starts with an empty test database

Not exactly. RSpec starts with whatever database you have and rolls
back to that state after each example provided you're only using
before(:each) to set up state before each example.

Any pre-existing database state will remain, and any state that you
set up in before(:suite) or before(:all) will not be rolled back
unless you do so explicitly.

HTH,
David

> and I can't see
> the best way or place to prepopulate it before the models get loaded (i.e.
> when Rails bootstraps, since config.cache_classes = true), ideally so that
> both rake spec and script/spec do the correct setup in time. It would be
> incredibly convenient to be able to use Fixtures.create_fixtures to do the
> loading so that the required data can live in YAML fixtures, but maybe it's
> optimistic to try to do that before Rails has loaded.
>
> Or maybe I'm just going about this completely the wrong way, and someone has
> a clever idea about what the right way is? That would be brilliant.
>
> Cheers,
> -Tom
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 09:13:59 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:13:59 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] collection-based finder methods
In-Reply-To: <1b4cae23-0005-4d10-8233-a0b10c071941@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
References: <1b4cae23-0005-4d10-8233-a0b10c071941@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907220613p546d6f52y423bcc71b626367@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, amkirwan<amkirwan at gmail.com> wrote:
> How do I spec this following example from the Agile Rails Book listed
> below. I am doing a similar thing in my controller and when I
> attempted to change it to the collection way of doing the find I am
> unable to get my spec to pass though I know it is working fine as my
> cucumber features are passing
>
> old rails way:
>
> def show
> @order = Order.find(params[:id])
> end
>
> new rails way collection-based:
>
> def show
> id = params[:id]
> @order = @user.orders.find(id)

This code is inherently untestable in an isolated/granular way. Your
options are:

* write higher level specs that use real data
  * pros: simplicity and clarity in both code and specs
  * cons: brittle due to runtime dependency on correct models, runs slow

* write a very invasive spec with complex setup and instance_eval to
set up the @user
  * pros: runs fast, no runtime dependency on correct models
  * cons: brittle due to dependency on internals, complex

* refactor the code to make it easier to spec
  * pros: more highly decoupled code, simpler specs, fast
  * cons: more work up front, may disregard some of what Rails has to offer

Note that the first two options are both brittle, but for different
reasons. The first is brittle due to a runtime dependency. That means
that when you run the spec the model has to be working correctly for
the spec to pass, and a failure could be due to a problem in the model
or in the controller.

The second is due to a code dependency. That means that when you want
to change this code, the spec will have to change as well. This is
true of any case in which you use mocks or stubs to varying degrees,
and that comes with its own tradeoffs. In this case, the necessary
stubbing would be complex and invasive enough that it would be a
concern to me.

Getting to your original question - what does your spec look like now,
and what failure message are you getting?

Cheers,
David



> rescue
> redirect_to :action => "index"
> end
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From tom at experthuman.com  Wed Jul 22 09:27:52 2009
From: tom at experthuman.com (Tom Stuart)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:27:52 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Loading (or stubbing) data before model loading
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907220557o2e9475e3ra80f5ce109550693@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B762B52D-350C-48CF-87D9-19B9B4BB21A0@experthuman.com>
	<57c63afe0907220557o2e9475e3ra80f5ce109550693@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0EFB6640-7BDA-43C4-9C9C-9C5D84D9A832@experthuman.com>

On 22 Jul 2009, at 13:57, David Chelimsky wrote:
>> The problem is that RSpec starts with an empty test database
> Not exactly. RSpec starts with whatever database you have and rolls
> back to that state after each example provided you're only using
> before(:each) to set up state before each example.

Quite right, and I should've been more specific: rake spec sets up an  
empty database and then runs RSpec. In the end I solved my problem by  
extending the db:test:prepare task to load the fixtures after cloning  
the development database structure, which in hindsight is obviously  
the right way to fix it.

> Any pre-existing database state will remain, and any state that you
> set up in before(:suite) or before(:all) will not be rolled back
> unless you do so explicitly.

On an unrelated note, why do I occasionally see leakage of fixture  
data between specs? I'd expect RSpec's explicit state rollback, plus  
Rails' transactional fixtures, to mean that fixtures loaded in one  
example would always be invisible to another, but that doesn't seem to  
be the case; I've seen many instances of mysteriously-appearing spec  
failures which turned out to be because of a change in running order  
(touching files + --loadby mtime --reverse) causing fixture leakage to  
move somewhere else, always easily remedied by explicitly loading  
whatever fixture had been forgotten. Is this a bug somewhere in RSpec  
or Rails (or MySQL), or something I'm just doing wrong?

Cheers,
-Tom

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 09:44:22 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:44:22 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Loading (or stubbing) data before model loading
In-Reply-To: <0EFB6640-7BDA-43C4-9C9C-9C5D84D9A832@experthuman.com>
References: <B762B52D-350C-48CF-87D9-19B9B4BB21A0@experthuman.com>
	<57c63afe0907220557o2e9475e3ra80f5ce109550693@mail.gmail.com>
	<0EFB6640-7BDA-43C4-9C9C-9C5D84D9A832@experthuman.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907220644t3d1c3467id7721c92400d25c8@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Tom Stuart<tom at experthuman.com> wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2009, at 13:57, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>>
>>> The problem is that RSpec starts with an empty test database
>>
>> Not exactly. RSpec starts with whatever database you have and rolls
>> back to that state after each example provided you're only using
>> before(:each) to set up state before each example.
>
> Quite right, and I should've been more specific: rake spec sets up an empty
> database and then runs RSpec. In the end I solved my problem by extending
> the db:test:prepare task to load the fixtures after cloning the development
> database structure, which in hindsight is obviously the right way to fix it.
>
>> Any pre-existing database state will remain, and any state that you
>> set up in before(:suite) or before(:all) will not be rolled back
>> unless you do so explicitly.
>
> On an unrelated note, why do I occasionally see leakage of fixture data
> between specs? I'd expect RSpec's explicit state rollback

There is no such thing as RSpec's explicit state rollback, thought
that does sound quite fancy.

All RSpec does is create new instances of each example group to run
each example in. That means that any local state does not get copied
from one example to another. You are responsible for managing any
global state. The same is true for any other testing framework btw (at
least those that I know of).

> , plus Rails'
> transactional fixtures, to mean that fixtures loaded in one example would
> always be invisible to another, but that doesn't seem to be the case; I've
> seen many instances of mysteriously-appearing spec failures which turned out
> to be because of a change in running order (touching files + --loadby mtime
> --reverse) causing fixture leakage to move somewhere else, always easily
> remedied by explicitly loading whatever fixture had been forgotten. Is this
> a bug somewhere in RSpec or Rails (or MySQL), or something I'm just doing
> wrong?

I can't speak for your situation in specific, but here are some possible causes:

* setting up state in a before(:all)
This data is not rolled back after the example group is run, so you
have to explicitly roll it back in an after(:all). If other specs were
passing due to state set up in a before(:all) that wasn't properly
matched with an after(:all) cleanup and happened to run before those
passing specs, then running those specs in isolation, or before the
offending group (with the before(:all)) may cause them to fail.

* data-backed global variables
This may seem counter-intuitive, since the database is rolled back
after each example - but keep in mind that _only_ the database is
rollled back. If a data-backed model is loaded into memory in a global
variable, that object is still there, even if the record in the
database no longer exists.

HTH,
David

> Cheers,
> -Tom

From amkirwan at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 10:12:46 2009
From: amkirwan at gmail.com (amkirwan)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] collection-based finder methods
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907220613p546d6f52y423bcc71b626367@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1b4cae23-0005-4d10-8233-a0b10c071941@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220613p546d6f52y423bcc71b626367@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <02cf62a9-ce26-4922-8e08-585741e85355@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>

My spec is a messed up because I have tried everything I can think of
to mock but this is what I have for the show method. The @user
instance is setup in the login_and_before_filter_pass macros with the
following: @user = mock_model(Person, :null_object => true)

The error I keep receiving is that assigns[:letter].should equal
@letter keeps return that it is expecting a Person object instead of a
Letter object. The only way I can get it to pass is by putting
@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
directly in the "should assign the found letter for the view"

I feel like I must be missing something about how stubbing and mocking
work


  # Get /admin/letters/1
  def show
    id = params[:id]
    @letter =  @user.letters.find(id)
  end


describe Admin::LettersController, "SHOW GET /admin/letters/1" do

  before(:each) do
    @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
  end

  def do_get
    put :show, {:id => "1"}, @session
  end

  login_and_before_filter_pass(:filter => :admin_only,
                             :request_method => :get,
                             :action => :show,
                             :parameters => {:cas_user => 'ak730'})

  it "should be successful" do
    do_get
    response.should be_success
  end

  it "should find the letter requested" do
    @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
    puts(@letter)
    do_get
  end

  it "should assign the found letter for the view" do
    # uncommenting will allow to pass
    # @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return
(@letter)
    do_get
    assigns[:letter].should equal(@letter)
  end

  it "should render show template" do
    do_get
    response.should render_template("show")
  end

end



On Jul 22, 9:13?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > How do I spec this following example from the Agile Rails Book listed
> > below. I am doing a similar thing in my controller and when I
> > attempted to change it to the collection way of doing the find I am
> > unable to get my spec to pass though I know it is working fine as my
> > cucumber features are passing
>
> > old rails way:
>
> > def show
> > @order = Order.find(params[:id])
> > end
>
> > new rails way collection-based:
>
> > def show
> > id = params[:id]
> > @order = @user.orders.find(id)
>
> This code is inherently untestable in an isolated/granular way. Your
> options are:
>
> * write higher level specs that use real data
> ? * pros: simplicity and clarity in both code and specs
> ? * cons: brittle due to runtime dependency on correct models, runs slow
>
> * write a very invasive spec with complex setup and instance_eval to
> set up the @user
> ? * pros: runs fast, no runtime dependency on correct models
> ? * cons: brittle due to dependency on internals, complex
>
> * refactor the code to make it easier to spec
> ? * pros: more highly decoupled code, simpler specs, fast
> ? * cons: more work up front, may disregard some of what Rails has to offer
>
> Note that the first two options are both brittle, but for different
> reasons. The first is brittle due to a runtime dependency. That means
> that when you run the spec the model has to be working correctly for
> the spec to pass, and a failure could be due to a problem in the model
> or in the controller.
>
> The second is due to a code dependency. That means that when you want
> to change this code, the spec will have to change as well. This is
> true of any case in which you use mocks or stubs to varying degrees,
> and that comes with its own tradeoffs. In this case, the necessary
> stubbing would be complex and invasive enough that it would be a
> concern to me.
>
> Getting to your original question - what does your spec look like now,
> and what failure message are you getting?
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> > rescue
> > redirect_to :action => "index"
> > end
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 10:42:13 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:42:13 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] collection-based finder methods
In-Reply-To: <02cf62a9-ce26-4922-8e08-585741e85355@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>
References: <1b4cae23-0005-4d10-8233-a0b10c071941@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220613p546d6f52y423bcc71b626367@mail.gmail.com>
	<02cf62a9-ce26-4922-8e08-585741e85355@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907220742p54a02008yf42ff8ab3c987f47@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:12 AM, amkirwan<amkirwan at gmail.com> wrote:
> My spec is a messed up because I have tried everything I can think of
> to mock but this is what I have for the show method. The @user
> instance is setup in the login_and_before_filter_pass macros with the
> following: @user = mock_model(Person, :null_object => true)
>
> The error I keep receiving is that assigns[:letter].should equal
> @letter keeps return that it is expecting a Person object instead of a
> Letter object. The only way I can get it to pass is by putting
> @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
> directly in the "should assign the found letter for the view"
>
> I feel like I must be missing something about how stubbing and mocking
> work
>
>
> ?# Get /admin/letters/1
> ?def show
> ? ?id = params[:id]
> ? ?@letter = ?@user.letters.find(id)
> ?end
>
>
> describe Admin::LettersController, "SHOW GET /admin/letters/1" do
>
> ?before(:each) do
> ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)

This @user is an instance variable in the spec, and is not the same
@user that is in the controller.

HTH,
David

> ?end
>
> ?def do_get
> ? ?put :show, {:id => "1"}, @session
> ?end
>
> ?login_and_before_filter_pass(:filter => :admin_only,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :request_method => :get,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :action => :show,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :parameters => {:cas_user => 'ak730'})
>
> ?it "should be successful" do
> ? ?do_get
> ? ?response.should be_success
> ?end
>
> ?it "should find the letter requested" do
> ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
> ? ?puts(@letter)
> ? ?do_get
> ?end
>
> ?it "should assign the found letter for the view" do
> ? ?# uncommenting will allow to pass
> ? ?# @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return
> (@letter)
> ? ?do_get
> ? ?assigns[:letter].should equal(@letter)
> ?end
>
> ?it "should render show template" do
> ? ?do_get
> ? ?response.should render_template("show")
> ?end
>
> end
>
>
>
> On Jul 22, 9:13?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > How do I spec this following example from the Agile Rails Book listed
>> > below. I am doing a similar thing in my controller and when I
>> > attempted to change it to the collection way of doing the find I am
>> > unable to get my spec to pass though I know it is working fine as my
>> > cucumber features are passing
>>
>> > old rails way:
>>
>> > def show
>> > @order = Order.find(params[:id])
>> > end
>>
>> > new rails way collection-based:
>>
>> > def show
>> > id = params[:id]
>> > @order = @user.orders.find(id)
>>
>> This code is inherently untestable in an isolated/granular way. Your
>> options are:
>>
>> * write higher level specs that use real data
>> ? * pros: simplicity and clarity in both code and specs
>> ? * cons: brittle due to runtime dependency on correct models, runs slow
>>
>> * write a very invasive spec with complex setup and instance_eval to
>> set up the @user
>> ? * pros: runs fast, no runtime dependency on correct models
>> ? * cons: brittle due to dependency on internals, complex
>>
>> * refactor the code to make it easier to spec
>> ? * pros: more highly decoupled code, simpler specs, fast
>> ? * cons: more work up front, may disregard some of what Rails has to offer
>>
>> Note that the first two options are both brittle, but for different
>> reasons. The first is brittle due to a runtime dependency. That means
>> that when you run the spec the model has to be working correctly for
>> the spec to pass, and a failure could be due to a problem in the model
>> or in the controller.
>>
>> The second is due to a code dependency. That means that when you want
>> to change this code, the spec will have to change as well. This is
>> true of any case in which you use mocks or stubs to varying degrees,
>> and that comes with its own tradeoffs. In this case, the necessary
>> stubbing would be complex and invasive enough that it would be a
>> concern to me.
>>
>> Getting to your original question - what does your spec look like now,
>> and what failure message are you getting?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>> > rescue
>> > redirect_to :action => "index"
>> > end
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rspec-users mailing list
>> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
>> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From amkirwan at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 11:31:48 2009
From: amkirwan at gmail.com (amkirwan)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] collection-based finder methods
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907220742p54a02008yf42ff8ab3c987f47@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1b4cae23-0005-4d10-8233-a0b10c071941@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220613p546d6f52y423bcc71b626367@mail.gmail.com> 
	<02cf62a9-ce26-4922-8e08-585741e85355@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907220742p54a02008yf42ff8ab3c987f47@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cfd134ac-240a-4f08-b4a5-19a92573bbea@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>

Thanks for the help but I guess I am not getting something. How is
@user= = mock_model(Person) and different then the following code:

message = mock_model(Message)
Message.stub!(:new).and_return message
message.should_receive(:save)
post :create


def create
message = Message.new params[:new]
message.save
end
I guess I don't understand why assigns[:letter] is expecting a Person
instance instead of a Letter instance

On Jul 22, 10:42?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:12 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > My spec is a messed up because I have tried everything I can think of
> > to mock but this is what I have for the show method. The @user
> > instance is setup in the login_and_before_filter_pass macros with the
> > following: @user = mock_model(Person, :null_object => true)
>
> > The error I keep receiving is that assigns[:letter].should equal
> > @letter keeps return that it is expecting a Person object instead of a
> > Letter object. The only way I can get it to pass is by putting
> > @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
> > directly in the "should assign the found letter for the view"
>
> > I feel like I must be missing something about how stubbing and mocking
> > work
>
> > ?# Get /admin/letters/1
> > ?def show
> > ? ?id = params[:id]
> > ? ?@letter = ?@user.letters.find(id)
> > ?end
>
> > describe Admin::LettersController, "SHOW GET /admin/letters/1" do
>
> > ?before(:each) do
> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>
> This @user is an instance variable in the spec, and is not the same
> @user that is in the controller.
>
> HTH,
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> > ?end
>
> > ?def do_get
> > ? ?put :show, {:id => "1"}, @session
> > ?end
>
> > ?login_and_before_filter_pass(:filter => :admin_only,
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :request_method => :get,
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :action => :show,
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :parameters => {:cas_user => 'ak730'})
>
> > ?it "should be successful" do
> > ? ?do_get
> > ? ?response.should be_success
> > ?end
>
> > ?it "should find the letter requested" do
> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
> > ? ?puts(@letter)
> > ? ?do_get
> > ?end
>
> > ?it "should assign the found letter for the view" do
> > ? ?# uncommenting will allow to pass
> > ? ?# @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return
> > (@letter)
> > ? ?do_get
> > ? ?assigns[:letter].should equal(@letter)
> > ?end
>
> > ?it "should render show template" do
> > ? ?do_get
> > ? ?response.should render_template("show")
> > ?end
>
> > end
>
> > On Jul 22, 9:13?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > How do I spec this following example from the Agile Rails Book listed
> >> > below. I am doing a similar thing in my controller and when I
> >> > attempted to change it to the collection way of doing the find I am
> >> > unable to get my spec to pass though I know it is working fine as my
> >> > cucumber features are passing
>
> >> > old rails way:
>
> >> > def show
> >> > @order = Order.find(params[:id])
> >> > end
>
> >> > new rails way collection-based:
>
> >> > def show
> >> > id = params[:id]
> >> > @order = @user.orders.find(id)
>
> >> This code is inherently untestable in an isolated/granular way. Your
> >> options are:
>
> >> * write higher level specs that use real data
> >> ? * pros: simplicity and clarity in both code and specs
> >> ? * cons: brittle due to runtime dependency on correct models, runs slow
>
> >> * write a very invasive spec with complex setup and instance_eval to
> >> set up the @user
> >> ? * pros: runs fast, no runtime dependency on correct models
> >> ? * cons: brittle due to dependency on internals, complex
>
> >> * refactor the code to make it easier to spec
> >> ? * pros: more highly decoupled code, simpler specs, fast
> >> ? * cons: more work up front, may disregard some of what Rails has to offer
>
> >> Note that the first two options are both brittle, but for different
> >> reasons. The first is brittle due to a runtime dependency. That means
> >> that when you run the spec the model has to be working correctly for
> >> the spec to pass, and a failure could be due to a problem in the model
> >> or in the controller.
>
> >> The second is due to a code dependency. That means that when you want
> >> to change this code, the spec will have to change as well. This is
> >> true of any case in which you use mocks or stubs to varying degrees,
> >> and that comes with its own tradeoffs. In this case, the necessary
> >> stubbing would be complex and invasive enough that it would be a
> >> concern to me.
>
> >> Getting to your original question - what does your spec look like now,
> >> and what failure message are you getting?
>
> >> Cheers,
> >> David
>
> >> > rescue
> >> > redirect_to :action => "index"
> >> > end
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > rspec-users mailing list
> >> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rspec-users mailing list
> >> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 11:39:08 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:39:08 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] collection-based finder methods
In-Reply-To: <cfd134ac-240a-4f08-b4a5-19a92573bbea@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
References: <1b4cae23-0005-4d10-8233-a0b10c071941@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220613p546d6f52y423bcc71b626367@mail.gmail.com>
	<02cf62a9-ce26-4922-8e08-585741e85355@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220742p54a02008yf42ff8ab3c987f47@mail.gmail.com>
	<cfd134ac-240a-4f08-b4a5-19a92573bbea@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907220839j74a7d9e7ob97622d8aee5bf03@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM, amkirwan<amkirwan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the help but I guess I am not getting something. How is
> @user= = mock_model(Person) and different then the following code:

This is assigning the mock_model(Person) to a @user instance variable
in the spec. This is not the same user that is in the controller.

> message = mock_model(Message)
> Message.stub!(:new).and_return message
> message.should_receive(:save)
> post :create

This creates a mock_model(Message) and then tells Message to return it
when it receives :new, therefore message in the spec is the same
object as Message.new in the controller.

> def create
> message = Message.new params[:new]
> message.save
> end
> I guess I don't understand why assigns[:letter] is expecting a Person
> instance instead of a Letter instance

I'm not clear on what you mean by this. Would you please post the full
error message (either here or in a pastie or gist)?

>
> On Jul 22, 10:42?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:12 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > My spec is a messed up because I have tried everything I can think of
>> > to mock but this is what I have for the show method. The @user
>> > instance is setup in the login_and_before_filter_pass macros with the
>> > following: @user = mock_model(Person, :null_object => true)
>>
>> > The error I keep receiving is that assigns[:letter].should equal
>> > @letter keeps return that it is expecting a Person object instead of a
>> > Letter object. The only way I can get it to pass is by putting
>> > @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>> > directly in the "should assign the found letter for the view"
>>
>> > I feel like I must be missing something about how stubbing and mocking
>> > work
>>
>> > ?# Get /admin/letters/1
>> > ?def show
>> > ? ?id = params[:id]
>> > ? ?@letter = ?@user.letters.find(id)
>> > ?end
>>
>> > describe Admin::LettersController, "SHOW GET /admin/letters/1" do
>>
>> > ?before(:each) do
>> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>>
>> This @user is an instance variable in the spec, and is not the same
>> @user that is in the controller.
>>
>> HTH,
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > ?end
>>
>> > ?def do_get
>> > ? ?put :show, {:id => "1"}, @session
>> > ?end
>>
>> > ?login_and_before_filter_pass(:filter => :admin_only,
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :request_method => :get,
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :action => :show,
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :parameters => {:cas_user => 'ak730'})
>>
>> > ?it "should be successful" do
>> > ? ?do_get
>> > ? ?response.should be_success
>> > ?end
>>
>> > ?it "should find the letter requested" do
>> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>> > ? ?puts(@letter)
>> > ? ?do_get
>> > ?end
>>
>> > ?it "should assign the found letter for the view" do
>> > ? ?# uncommenting will allow to pass
>> > ? ?# @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return
>> > (@letter)
>> > ? ?do_get
>> > ? ?assigns[:letter].should equal(@letter)
>> > ?end
>>
>> > ?it "should render show template" do
>> > ? ?do_get
>> > ? ?response.should render_template("show")
>> > ?end
>>
>> > end
>>
>> > On Jul 22, 9:13?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > How do I spec this following example from the Agile Rails Book listed
>> >> > below. I am doing a similar thing in my controller and when I
>> >> > attempted to change it to the collection way of doing the find I am
>> >> > unable to get my spec to pass though I know it is working fine as my
>> >> > cucumber features are passing
>>
>> >> > old rails way:
>>
>> >> > def show
>> >> > @order = Order.find(params[:id])
>> >> > end
>>
>> >> > new rails way collection-based:
>>
>> >> > def show
>> >> > id = params[:id]
>> >> > @order = @user.orders.find(id)
>>
>> >> This code is inherently untestable in an isolated/granular way. Your
>> >> options are:
>>
>> >> * write higher level specs that use real data
>> >> ? * pros: simplicity and clarity in both code and specs
>> >> ? * cons: brittle due to runtime dependency on correct models, runs slow
>>
>> >> * write a very invasive spec with complex setup and instance_eval to
>> >> set up the @user
>> >> ? * pros: runs fast, no runtime dependency on correct models
>> >> ? * cons: brittle due to dependency on internals, complex
>>
>> >> * refactor the code to make it easier to spec
>> >> ? * pros: more highly decoupled code, simpler specs, fast
>> >> ? * cons: more work up front, may disregard some of what Rails has to offer
>>
>> >> Note that the first two options are both brittle, but for different
>> >> reasons. The first is brittle due to a runtime dependency. That means
>> >> that when you run the spec the model has to be working correctly for
>> >> the spec to pass, and a failure could be due to a problem in the model
>> >> or in the controller.
>>
>> >> The second is due to a code dependency. That means that when you want
>> >> to change this code, the spec will have to change as well. This is
>> >> true of any case in which you use mocks or stubs to varying degrees,
>> >> and that comes with its own tradeoffs. In this case, the necessary
>> >> stubbing would be complex and invasive enough that it would be a
>> >> concern to me.
>>
>> >> Getting to your original question - what does your spec look like now,
>> >> and what failure message are you getting?
>>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> David
>>
>> >> > rescue
>> >> > redirect_to :action => "index"
>> >> > end
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > rspec-users mailing list
>> >> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
>> >> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> rspec-users mailing list
>> >> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rspec-users mailing list
>> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
>> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From amkirwan at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 11:52:07 2009
From: amkirwan at gmail.com (amkirwan)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] collection-based finder methods
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907220839j74a7d9e7ob97622d8aee5bf03@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1b4cae23-0005-4d10-8233-a0b10c071941@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220613p546d6f52y423bcc71b626367@mail.gmail.com> 
	<02cf62a9-ce26-4922-8e08-585741e85355@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907220742p54a02008yf42ff8ab3c987f47@mail.gmail.com> 
	<cfd134ac-240a-4f08-b4a5-19a92573bbea@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907220839j74a7d9e7ob97622d8aee5bf03@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f346f591-046a-4227-bb87-42985331063b@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>

Okay I get the "and_return" part now thanks.

Here is the error

http://gist.github.com/152061

On Jul 22, 11:39?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the help but I guess I am not getting something. How is
> > @user= = mock_model(Person) and different then the following code:
>
> This is assigning the mock_model(Person) to a @user instance variable
> in the spec. This is not the same user that is in the controller.
>
> > message = mock_model(Message)
> > Message.stub!(:new).and_return message
> > message.should_receive(:save)
> > post :create
>
> This creates a mock_model(Message) and then tells Message to return it
> when it receives :new, therefore message in the spec is the same
> object as Message.new in the controller.
>
> > def create
> > message = Message.new params[:new]
> > message.save
> > end
> > I guess I don't understand why assigns[:letter] is expecting a Person
> > instance instead of a Letter instance
>
> I'm not clear on what you mean by this. Would you please post the full
> error message (either here or in a pastie or gist)?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 10:42?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:12 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > My spec is a messed up because I have tried everything I can think of
> >> > to mock but this is what I have for the show method. The @user
> >> > instance is setup in the login_and_before_filter_pass macros with the
> >> > following: @user = mock_model(Person, :null_object => true)
>
> >> > The error I keep receiving is that assigns[:letter].should equal
> >> > @letter keeps return that it is expecting a Person object instead of a
> >> > Letter object. The only way I can get it to pass is by putting
> >> > @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
> >> > directly in the "should assign the found letter for the view"
>
> >> > I feel like I must be missing something about how stubbing and mocking
> >> > work
>
> >> > ?# Get /admin/letters/1
> >> > ?def show
> >> > ? ?id = params[:id]
> >> > ? ?@letter = ?@user.letters.find(id)
> >> > ?end
>
> >> > describe Admin::LettersController, "SHOW GET /admin/letters/1" do
>
> >> > ?before(:each) do
> >> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>
> >> This @user is an instance variable in the spec, and is not the same
> >> @user that is in the controller.
>
> >> HTH,
> >> David
>
> >> > ?end
>
> >> > ?def do_get
> >> > ? ?put :show, {:id => "1"}, @session
> >> > ?end
>
> >> > ?login_and_before_filter_pass(:filter => :admin_only,
> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :request_method => :get,
> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :action => :show,
> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :parameters => {:cas_user => 'ak730'})
>
> >> > ?it "should be successful" do
> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> > ? ?response.should be_success
> >> > ?end
>
> >> > ?it "should find the letter requested" do
> >> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
> >> > ? ?puts(@letter)
> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> > ?end
>
> >> > ?it "should assign the found letter for the view" do
> >> > ? ?# uncommenting will allow to pass
> >> > ? ?# @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return
> >> > (@letter)
> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> > ? ?assigns[:letter].should equal(@letter)
> >> > ?end
>
> >> > ?it "should render show template" do
> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> > ? ?response.should render_template("show")
> >> > ?end
>
> >> > end
>
> >> > On Jul 22, 9:13?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > How do I spec this following example from the Agile Rails Book listed
> >> >> > below. I am doing a similar thing in my controller and when I
> >> >> > attempted to change it to the collection way of doing the find I am
> >> >> > unable to get my spec to pass though I know it is working fine as my
> >> >> > cucumber features are passing
>
> >> >> > old rails way:
>
> >> >> > def show
> >> >> > @order = Order.find(params[:id])
> >> >> > end
>
> >> >> > new rails way collection-based:
>
> >> >> > def show
> >> >> > id = params[:id]
> >> >> > @order = @user.orders.find(id)
>
> >> >> This code is inherently untestable in an isolated/granular way. Your
> >> >> options are:
>
> >> >> * write higher level specs that use real data
> >> >> ? * pros: simplicity and clarity in both code and specs
> >> >> ? * cons: brittle due to runtime dependency on correct models, runs slow
>
> >> >> * write a very invasive spec with complex setup and instance_eval to
> >> >> set up the @user
> >> >> ? * pros: runs fast, no runtime dependency on correct models
> >> >> ? * cons: brittle due to dependency on internals, complex
>
> >> >> * refactor the code to make it easier to spec
> >> >> ? * pros: more highly decoupled code, simpler specs, fast
> >> >> ? * cons: more work up front, may disregard some of what Rails has to offer
>
> >> >> Note that the first two options are both brittle, but for different
> >> >> reasons. The first is brittle due to a runtime dependency. That means
> >> >> that when you run the spec the model has to be working correctly for
> >> >> the spec to pass, and a failure could be due to a problem in the model
> >> >> or in the controller.
>
> >> >> The second is due to a code dependency. That means that when you want
> >> >> to change this code, the spec will have to change as well. This is
> >> >> true of any case in which you use mocks or stubs to varying degrees,
> >> >> and that comes with its own tradeoffs. In this case, the necessary
> >> >> stubbing would be complex and invasive enough that it would be a
> >> >> concern to me.
>
> >> >> Getting to your original question - what does your spec look like now,
> >> >> and what failure message are you getting?
>
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> David
>
> >> >> > rescue
> >> >> > redirect_to :action => "index"
> >> >> > end
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > rspec-users mailing list
> >> >> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >> >> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> rspec-users mailing list
> >> >> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > rspec-users mailing list
> >> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rspec-users mailing list
> >> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From amkirwan at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 11:54:34 2009
From: amkirwan at gmail.com (amkirwan)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] collection-based finder methods
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907220839j74a7d9e7ob97622d8aee5bf03@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1b4cae23-0005-4d10-8233-a0b10c071941@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220613p546d6f52y423bcc71b626367@mail.gmail.com> 
	<02cf62a9-ce26-4922-8e08-585741e85355@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907220742p54a02008yf42ff8ab3c987f47@mail.gmail.com> 
	<cfd134ac-240a-4f08-b4a5-19a92573bbea@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907220839j74a7d9e7ob97622d8aee5bf03@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e37e6ea0-396d-4916-ab56-bb31b69af669@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>

thanks, I understand now the ".and_return" part.

Here is the failure I am receiving

http://gist.github.com/152061

On Jul 22, 11:39?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the help but I guess I am not getting something. How is
> > @user= = mock_model(Person) and different then the following code:
>
> This is assigning the mock_model(Person) to a @user instance variable
> in the spec. This is not the same user that is in the controller.
>
> > message = mock_model(Message)
> > Message.stub!(:new).and_return message
> > message.should_receive(:save)
> > post :create
>
> This creates a mock_model(Message) and then tells Message to return it
> when it receives :new, therefore message in the spec is the same
> object as Message.new in the controller.
>
> > def create
> > message = Message.new params[:new]
> > message.save
> > end
> > I guess I don't understand why assigns[:letter] is expecting a Person
> > instance instead of a Letter instance
>
> I'm not clear on what you mean by this. Would you please post the full
> error message (either here or in a pastie or gist)?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 10:42?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:12 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > My spec is a messed up because I have tried everything I can think of
> >> > to mock but this is what I have for the show method. The @user
> >> > instance is setup in the login_and_before_filter_pass macros with the
> >> > following: @user = mock_model(Person, :null_object => true)
>
> >> > The error I keep receiving is that assigns[:letter].should equal
> >> > @letter keeps return that it is expecting a Person object instead of a
> >> > Letter object. The only way I can get it to pass is by putting
> >> > @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
> >> > directly in the "should assign the found letter for the view"
>
> >> > I feel like I must be missing something about how stubbing and mocking
> >> > work
>
> >> > ?# Get /admin/letters/1
> >> > ?def show
> >> > ? ?id = params[:id]
> >> > ? ?@letter = ?@user.letters.find(id)
> >> > ?end
>
> >> > describe Admin::LettersController, "SHOW GET /admin/letters/1" do
>
> >> > ?before(:each) do
> >> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>
> >> This @user is an instance variable in the spec, and is not the same
> >> @user that is in the controller.
>
> >> HTH,
> >> David
>
> >> > ?end
>
> >> > ?def do_get
> >> > ? ?put :show, {:id => "1"}, @session
> >> > ?end
>
> >> > ?login_and_before_filter_pass(:filter => :admin_only,
> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :request_method => :get,
> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :action => :show,
> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :parameters => {:cas_user => 'ak730'})
>
> >> > ?it "should be successful" do
> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> > ? ?response.should be_success
> >> > ?end
>
> >> > ?it "should find the letter requested" do
> >> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
> >> > ? ?puts(@letter)
> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> > ?end
>
> >> > ?it "should assign the found letter for the view" do
> >> > ? ?# uncommenting will allow to pass
> >> > ? ?# @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return
> >> > (@letter)
> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> > ? ?assigns[:letter].should equal(@letter)
> >> > ?end
>
> >> > ?it "should render show template" do
> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> > ? ?response.should render_template("show")
> >> > ?end
>
> >> > end
>
> >> > On Jul 22, 9:13?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > How do I spec this following example from the Agile Rails Book listed
> >> >> > below. I am doing a similar thing in my controller and when I
> >> >> > attempted to change it to the collection way of doing the find I am
> >> >> > unable to get my spec to pass though I know it is working fine as my
> >> >> > cucumber features are passing
>
> >> >> > old rails way:
>
> >> >> > def show
> >> >> > @order = Order.find(params[:id])
> >> >> > end
>
> >> >> > new rails way collection-based:
>
> >> >> > def show
> >> >> > id = params[:id]
> >> >> > @order = @user.orders.find(id)
>
> >> >> This code is inherently untestable in an isolated/granular way. Your
> >> >> options are:
>
> >> >> * write higher level specs that use real data
> >> >> ? * pros: simplicity and clarity in both code and specs
> >> >> ? * cons: brittle due to runtime dependency on correct models, runs slow
>
> >> >> * write a very invasive spec with complex setup and instance_eval to
> >> >> set up the @user
> >> >> ? * pros: runs fast, no runtime dependency on correct models
> >> >> ? * cons: brittle due to dependency on internals, complex
>
> >> >> * refactor the code to make it easier to spec
> >> >> ? * pros: more highly decoupled code, simpler specs, fast
> >> >> ? * cons: more work up front, may disregard some of what Rails has to offer
>
> >> >> Note that the first two options are both brittle, but for different
> >> >> reasons. The first is brittle due to a runtime dependency. That means
> >> >> that when you run the spec the model has to be working correctly for
> >> >> the spec to pass, and a failure could be due to a problem in the model
> >> >> or in the controller.
>
> >> >> The second is due to a code dependency. That means that when you want
> >> >> to change this code, the spec will have to change as well. This is
> >> >> true of any case in which you use mocks or stubs to varying degrees,
> >> >> and that comes with its own tradeoffs. In this case, the necessary
> >> >> stubbing would be complex and invasive enough that it would be a
> >> >> concern to me.
>
> >> >> Getting to your original question - what does your spec look like now,
> >> >> and what failure message are you getting?
>
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> David
>
> >> >> > rescue
> >> >> > redirect_to :action => "index"
> >> >> > end
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > rspec-users mailing list
> >> >> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >> >> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> rspec-users mailing list
> >> >> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > rspec-users mailing list
> >> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rspec-users mailing list
> >> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 12:11:25 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:11:25 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] collection-based finder methods
In-Reply-To: <f346f591-046a-4227-bb87-42985331063b@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
References: <1b4cae23-0005-4d10-8233-a0b10c071941@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220613p546d6f52y423bcc71b626367@mail.gmail.com>
	<02cf62a9-ce26-4922-8e08-585741e85355@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220742p54a02008yf42ff8ab3c987f47@mail.gmail.com>
	<cfd134ac-240a-4f08-b4a5-19a92573bbea@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220839j74a7d9e7ob97622d8aee5bf03@mail.gmail.com>
	<f346f591-046a-4227-bb87-42985331063b@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907220911x2f687f8by2a046c0f42c809ad@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:52 AM, amkirwan<amkirwan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay I get the "and_return" part now thanks.
>
> Here is the error
>
> http://gist.github.com/152061

Well, the error seems quite clear. It's expecting a Letter and gets a Person.

I know you've posted bits of the code in this thread, but would you
mind posting the entire spec and controller code in a gist? At least
the code related to the show action.

Thanks,
David

>
> On Jul 22, 11:39?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Thanks for the help but I guess I am not getting something. How is
>> > @user= = mock_model(Person) and different then the following code:
>>
>> This is assigning the mock_model(Person) to a @user instance variable
>> in the spec. This is not the same user that is in the controller.
>>
>> > message = mock_model(Message)
>> > Message.stub!(:new).and_return message
>> > message.should_receive(:save)
>> > post :create
>>
>> This creates a mock_model(Message) and then tells Message to return it
>> when it receives :new, therefore message in the spec is the same
>> object as Message.new in the controller.
>>
>> > def create
>> > message = Message.new params[:new]
>> > message.save
>> > end
>> > I guess I don't understand why assigns[:letter] is expecting a Person
>> > instance instead of a Letter instance
>>
>> I'm not clear on what you mean by this. Would you please post the full
>> error message (either here or in a pastie or gist)?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 22, 10:42?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:12 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > My spec is a messed up because I have tried everything I can think of
>> >> > to mock but this is what I have for the show method. The @user
>> >> > instance is setup in the login_and_before_filter_pass macros with the
>> >> > following: @user = mock_model(Person, :null_object => true)
>>
>> >> > The error I keep receiving is that assigns[:letter].should equal
>> >> > @letter keeps return that it is expecting a Person object instead of a
>> >> > Letter object. The only way I can get it to pass is by putting
>> >> > @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>> >> > directly in the "should assign the found letter for the view"
>>
>> >> > I feel like I must be missing something about how stubbing and mocking
>> >> > work
>>
>> >> > ?# Get /admin/letters/1
>> >> > ?def show
>> >> > ? ?id = params[:id]
>> >> > ? ?@letter = ?@user.letters.find(id)
>> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> > describe Admin::LettersController, "SHOW GET /admin/letters/1" do
>>
>> >> > ?before(:each) do
>> >> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>>
>> >> This @user is an instance variable in the spec, and is not the same
>> >> @user that is in the controller.
>>
>> >> HTH,
>> >> David
>>
>> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> > ?def do_get
>> >> > ? ?put :show, {:id => "1"}, @session
>> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> > ?login_and_before_filter_pass(:filter => :admin_only,
>> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :request_method => :get,
>> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :action => :show,
>> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :parameters => {:cas_user => 'ak730'})
>>
>> >> > ?it "should be successful" do
>> >> > ? ?do_get
>> >> > ? ?response.should be_success
>> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> > ?it "should find the letter requested" do
>> >> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>> >> > ? ?puts(@letter)
>> >> > ? ?do_get
>> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> > ?it "should assign the found letter for the view" do
>> >> > ? ?# uncommenting will allow to pass
>> >> > ? ?# @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return
>> >> > (@letter)
>> >> > ? ?do_get
>> >> > ? ?assigns[:letter].should equal(@letter)
>> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> > ?it "should render show template" do
>> >> > ? ?do_get
>> >> > ? ?response.should render_template("show")
>> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> > end
>>
>> >> > On Jul 22, 9:13?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > How do I spec this following example from the Agile Rails Book listed
>> >> >> > below. I am doing a similar thing in my controller and when I
>> >> >> > attempted to change it to the collection way of doing the find I am
>> >> >> > unable to get my spec to pass though I know it is working fine as my
>> >> >> > cucumber features are passing
>>
>> >> >> > old rails way:
>>
>> >> >> > def show
>> >> >> > @order = Order.find(params[:id])
>> >> >> > end
>>
>> >> >> > new rails way collection-based:
>>
>> >> >> > def show
>> >> >> > id = params[:id]
>> >> >> > @order = @user.orders.find(id)
>>
>> >> >> This code is inherently untestable in an isolated/granular way. Your
>> >> >> options are:
>>
>> >> >> * write higher level specs that use real data
>> >> >> ? * pros: simplicity and clarity in both code and specs
>> >> >> ? * cons: brittle due to runtime dependency on correct models, runs slow
>>
>> >> >> * write a very invasive spec with complex setup and instance_eval to
>> >> >> set up the @user
>> >> >> ? * pros: runs fast, no runtime dependency on correct models
>> >> >> ? * cons: brittle due to dependency on internals, complex
>>
>> >> >> * refactor the code to make it easier to spec
>> >> >> ? * pros: more highly decoupled code, simpler specs, fast
>> >> >> ? * cons: more work up front, may disregard some of what Rails has to offer
>>
>> >> >> Note that the first two options are both brittle, but for different
>> >> >> reasons. The first is brittle due to a runtime dependency. That means
>> >> >> that when you run the spec the model has to be working correctly for
>> >> >> the spec to pass, and a failure could be due to a problem in the model
>> >> >> or in the controller.
>>
>> >> >> The second is due to a code dependency. That means that when you want
>> >> >> to change this code, the spec will have to change as well. This is
>> >> >> true of any case in which you use mocks or stubs to varying degrees,
>> >> >> and that comes with its own tradeoffs. In this case, the necessary
>> >> >> stubbing would be complex and invasive enough that it would be a
>> >> >> concern to me.
>>
>> >> >> Getting to your original question - what does your spec look like now,
>> >> >> and what failure message are you getting?
>>
>> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >> David
>>
>> >> >> > rescue
>> >> >> > redirect_to :action => "index"
>> >> >> > end
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> > rspec-users mailing list
>> >> >> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
>> >> >> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> rspec-users mailing list
>> >> >> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > rspec-users mailing list
>> >> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
>> >> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> rspec-users mailing list
>> >> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rspec-users mailing list
>> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
>> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From celoserpa at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 12:19:24 2009
From: celoserpa at gmail.com (Marcelo de Moraes Serpa)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:19:24 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Making sure a action exists (aka specing a controller
	action)
Message-ID: <1e5bcefd0907220919j27d73791r711dd5741d31040c@mail.gmail.com>

Hello list!

In my efforts of following BDD in a disciplined manner, I found myself
needing to spec a Rails action.

The behavior I wanted to test was: "This controller should handle the
index action", and since it is not good practice to go to the
implementation before specing, I decided to spec the action too, so I
could start defining it. I did:

describe MyController do

 it "should handle get requests to the index action" do
   get :index
   response.should be_success
 end

The problem is the assertion. Even if you don't have the action, the
http response will be 200 OK. I tried to check for the "Unknown
Action" text (with the have_text matcher) but strangely enough, even
if you don't have the action defined in the controller, the response
body is always empty (which doesn't happen if you request from
mongrel, which shows an "Unknown action" page.

Any ideas on how I could assert that the index action exists and that
it fails when it is not there? Maybe this test doesn't make sense? Any
suggestions welcome!

Thanks,

Marcelo.

From amkirwan at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 12:38:49 2009
From: amkirwan at gmail.com (amkirwan)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] collection-based finder methods
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907220911x2f687f8by2a046c0f42c809ad@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1b4cae23-0005-4d10-8233-a0b10c071941@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220613p546d6f52y423bcc71b626367@mail.gmail.com> 
	<02cf62a9-ce26-4922-8e08-585741e85355@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907220742p54a02008yf42ff8ab3c987f47@mail.gmail.com> 
	<cfd134ac-240a-4f08-b4a5-19a92573bbea@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907220839j74a7d9e7ob97622d8aee5bf03@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f346f591-046a-4227-bb87-42985331063b@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907220911x2f687f8by2a046c0f42c809ad@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <91a5e02f-e4f0-4746-a29c-d5cfeb7fadbc@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>

Here is the code, I pasted the letter_controller.rb,
letters_controller_spec.rb and the controllers macros.rb, thanks again
for your help.

On Jul 22, 12:11?pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:52 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Okay I get the "and_return" part now thanks.
>
> > Here is the error
>
> >http://gist.github.com/152061
>
> Well, the error seems quite clear. It's expecting a Letter and gets a Person.
>
> I know you've posted bits of the code in this thread, but would you
> mind posting the entire spec and controller code in a gist? At least
> the code related to the show action.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 11:39?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Thanks for the help but I guess I am not getting something. How is
> >> > @user= = mock_model(Person) and different then the following code:
>
> >> This is assigning the mock_model(Person) to a @user instance variable
> >> in the spec. This is not the same user that is in the controller.
>
> >> > message = mock_model(Message)
> >> > Message.stub!(:new).and_return message
> >> > message.should_receive(:save)
> >> > post :create
>
> >> This creates a mock_model(Message) and then tells Message to return it
> >> when it receives :new, therefore message in the spec is the same
> >> object as Message.new in the controller.
>
> >> > def create
> >> > message = Message.new params[:new]
> >> > message.save
> >> > end
> >> > I guess I don't understand why assigns[:letter] is expecting a Person
> >> > instance instead of a Letter instance
>
> >> I'm not clear on what you mean by this. Would you please post the full
> >> error message (either here or in a pastie or gist)?
>
> >> > On Jul 22, 10:42?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:12 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > My spec is a messed up because I have tried everything I can think of
> >> >> > to mock but this is what I have for the show method. The @user
> >> >> > instance is setup in the login_and_before_filter_pass macros with the
> >> >> > following: @user = mock_model(Person, :null_object => true)
>
> >> >> > The error I keep receiving is that assigns[:letter].should equal
> >> >> > @letter keeps return that it is expecting a Person object instead of a
> >> >> > Letter object. The only way I can get it to pass is by putting
> >> >> > @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
> >> >> > directly in the "should assign the found letter for the view"
>
> >> >> > I feel like I must be missing something about how stubbing and mocking
> >> >> > work
>
> >> >> > ?# Get /admin/letters/1
> >> >> > ?def show
> >> >> > ? ?id = params[:id]
> >> >> > ? ?@letter = ?@user.letters.find(id)
> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> > describe Admin::LettersController, "SHOW GET /admin/letters/1" do
>
> >> >> > ?before(:each) do
> >> >> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>
> >> >> This @user is an instance variable in the spec, and is not the same
> >> >> @user that is in the controller.
>
> >> >> HTH,
> >> >> David
>
> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> > ?def do_get
> >> >> > ? ?put :show, {:id => "1"}, @session
> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> > ?login_and_before_filter_pass(:filter => :admin_only,
> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :request_method => :get,
> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :action => :show,
> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :parameters => {:cas_user => 'ak730'})
>
> >> >> > ?it "should be successful" do
> >> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> >> > ? ?response.should be_success
> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> > ?it "should find the letter requested" do
> >> >> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
> >> >> > ? ?puts(@letter)
> >> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> > ?it "should assign the found letter for the view" do
> >> >> > ? ?# uncommenting will allow to pass
> >> >> > ? ?# @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return
> >> >> > (@letter)
> >> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> >> > ? ?assigns[:letter].should equal(@letter)
> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> > ?it "should render show template" do
> >> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> >> > ? ?response.should render_template("show")
> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> > end
>
> >> >> > On Jul 22, 9:13?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > How do I spec this following example from the Agile Rails Book listed
> >> >> >> > below. I am doing a similar thing in my controller and when I
> >> >> >> > attempted to change it to the collection way of doing the find I am
> >> >> >> > unable to get my spec to pass though I know it is working fine as my
> >> >> >> > cucumber features are passing
>
> >> >> >> > old rails way:
>
> >> >> >> > def show
> >> >> >> > @order = Order.find(params[:id])
> >> >> >> > end
>
> >> >> >> > new rails way collection-based:
>
> >> >> >> > def show
> >> >> >> > id = params[:id]
> >> >> >> > @order = @user.orders.find(id)
>
> >> >> >> This code is inherently untestable in an isolated/granular way. Your
> >> >> >> options are:
>
> >> >> >> * write higher level specs that use real data
> >> >> >> ? * pros: simplicity and clarity in both code and specs
> >> >> >> ? * cons: brittle due to runtime dependency on correct models, runs slow
>
> >> >> >> * write a very invasive spec with complex setup and instance_eval to
> >> >> >> set up the @user
> >> >> >> ? * pros: runs fast, no runtime dependency on correct models
> >> >> >> ? * cons: brittle due to dependency on internals, complex
>
> >> >> >> * refactor the code to make it easier to spec
> >> >> >> ? * pros: more highly decoupled code, simpler specs, fast
> >> >> >> ? * cons: more work up front, may disregard some of what Rails has to offer
>
> >> >> >> Note that the first two options are both brittle, but for different
> >> >> >> reasons. The first is brittle due to a runtime dependency. That means
> >> >> >> that when you run the spec the model has to be working correctly for
> >> >> >> the spec to pass, and a failure could be due to a problem in the model
> >> >> >> or in the controller.
>
> >> >> >> The second is due to a code dependency. That means that when you want
> >> >> >> to change this code, the spec will have to change as well. This is
> >> >> >> true of any case in which you use mocks or stubs to varying degrees,
> >> >> >> and that comes with its own tradeoffs. In this case, the necessary
> >> >> >> stubbing would be complex and invasive enough that it would be a
> >> >> >> concern to me.
>
> >> >> >> Getting to your original question - what does your spec look like now,
> >> >> >> and what failure message are you getting?
>
> >> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> >> David
>
> >> >> >> > rescue
> >> >> >> > redirect_to :action => "index"
> >> >> >> > end
> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> > rspec-users mailing list
> >> >> >> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >> >> >> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> rspec-users mailing list
> >> >> >> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > rspec-users mailing list
> >> >> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >> >> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> rspec-users mailing list
> >> >> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > rspec-users mailing list
> >> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rspec-users mailing list
> >> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 13:02:52 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:02:52 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] collection-based finder methods
In-Reply-To: <91a5e02f-e4f0-4746-a29c-d5cfeb7fadbc@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
References: <1b4cae23-0005-4d10-8233-a0b10c071941@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220613p546d6f52y423bcc71b626367@mail.gmail.com>
	<02cf62a9-ce26-4922-8e08-585741e85355@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220742p54a02008yf42ff8ab3c987f47@mail.gmail.com>
	<cfd134ac-240a-4f08-b4a5-19a92573bbea@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220839j74a7d9e7ob97622d8aee5bf03@mail.gmail.com>
	<f346f591-046a-4227-bb87-42985331063b@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220911x2f687f8by2a046c0f42c809ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<91a5e02f-e4f0-4746-a29c-d5cfeb7fadbc@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907221002q201bf00sb304da527f9d5581@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:38 AM, amkirwan<amkirwan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is the code,

Where? I don't see code pasted or a link to a gist.

> I pasted the letter_controller.rb,
> letters_controller_spec.rb and the controllers macros.rb, thanks again
> for your help.
>
> On Jul 22, 12:11?pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:52 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Okay I get the "and_return" part now thanks.
>>
>> > Here is the error
>>
>> >http://gist.github.com/152061
>>
>> Well, the error seems quite clear. It's expecting a Letter and gets a Person.
>>
>> I know you've posted bits of the code in this thread, but would you
>> mind posting the entire spec and controller code in a gist? At least
>> the code related to the show action.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 22, 11:39?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Thanks for the help but I guess I am not getting something. How is
>> >> > @user= = mock_model(Person) and different then the following code:
>>
>> >> This is assigning the mock_model(Person) to a @user instance variable
>> >> in the spec. This is not the same user that is in the controller.
>>
>> >> > message = mock_model(Message)
>> >> > Message.stub!(:new).and_return message
>> >> > message.should_receive(:save)
>> >> > post :create
>>
>> >> This creates a mock_model(Message) and then tells Message to return it
>> >> when it receives :new, therefore message in the spec is the same
>> >> object as Message.new in the controller.
>>
>> >> > def create
>> >> > message = Message.new params[:new]
>> >> > message.save
>> >> > end
>> >> > I guess I don't understand why assigns[:letter] is expecting a Person
>> >> > instance instead of a Letter instance
>>
>> >> I'm not clear on what you mean by this. Would you please post the full
>> >> error message (either here or in a pastie or gist)?
>>
>> >> > On Jul 22, 10:42?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:12 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > My spec is a messed up because I have tried everything I can think of
>> >> >> > to mock but this is what I have for the show method. The @user
>> >> >> > instance is setup in the login_and_before_filter_pass macros with the
>> >> >> > following: @user = mock_model(Person, :null_object => true)
>>
>> >> >> > The error I keep receiving is that assigns[:letter].should equal
>> >> >> > @letter keeps return that it is expecting a Person object instead of a
>> >> >> > Letter object. The only way I can get it to pass is by putting
>> >> >> > @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>> >> >> > directly in the "should assign the found letter for the view"
>>
>> >> >> > I feel like I must be missing something about how stubbing and mocking
>> >> >> > work
>>
>> >> >> > ?# Get /admin/letters/1
>> >> >> > ?def show
>> >> >> > ? ?id = params[:id]
>> >> >> > ? ?@letter = ?@user.letters.find(id)
>> >> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> >> > describe Admin::LettersController, "SHOW GET /admin/letters/1" do
>>
>> >> >> > ?before(:each) do
>> >> >> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>>
>> >> >> This @user is an instance variable in the spec, and is not the same
>> >> >> @user that is in the controller.
>>
>> >> >> HTH,
>> >> >> David
>>
>> >> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> >> > ?def do_get
>> >> >> > ? ?put :show, {:id => "1"}, @session
>> >> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> >> > ?login_and_before_filter_pass(:filter => :admin_only,
>> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :request_method => :get,
>> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :action => :show,
>> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :parameters => {:cas_user => 'ak730'})
>>
>> >> >> > ?it "should be successful" do
>> >> >> > ? ?do_get
>> >> >> > ? ?response.should be_success
>> >> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> >> > ?it "should find the letter requested" do
>> >> >> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>> >> >> > ? ?puts(@letter)
>> >> >> > ? ?do_get
>> >> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> >> > ?it "should assign the found letter for the view" do
>> >> >> > ? ?# uncommenting will allow to pass
>> >> >> > ? ?# @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return
>> >> >> > (@letter)
>> >> >> > ? ?do_get
>> >> >> > ? ?assigns[:letter].should equal(@letter)
>> >> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> >> > ?it "should render show template" do
>> >> >> > ? ?do_get
>> >> >> > ? ?response.should render_template("show")
>> >> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> >> > end
>>
>> >> >> > On Jul 22, 9:13?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > How do I spec this following example from the Agile Rails Book listed
>> >> >> >> > below. I am doing a similar thing in my controller and when I
>> >> >> >> > attempted to change it to the collection way of doing the find I am
>> >> >> >> > unable to get my spec to pass though I know it is working fine as my
>> >> >> >> > cucumber features are passing
>>
>> >> >> >> > old rails way:
>>
>> >> >> >> > def show
>> >> >> >> > @order = Order.find(params[:id])
>> >> >> >> > end
>>
>> >> >> >> > new rails way collection-based:
>>
>> >> >> >> > def show
>> >> >> >> > id = params[:id]
>> >> >> >> > @order = @user.orders.find(id)
>>
>> >> >> >> This code is inherently untestable in an isolated/granular way. Your
>> >> >> >> options are:
>>
>> >> >> >> * write higher level specs that use real data
>> >> >> >> ? * pros: simplicity and clarity in both code and specs
>> >> >> >> ? * cons: brittle due to runtime dependency on correct models, runs slow
>>
>> >> >> >> * write a very invasive spec with complex setup and instance_eval to
>> >> >> >> set up the @user
>> >> >> >> ? * pros: runs fast, no runtime dependency on correct models
>> >> >> >> ? * cons: brittle due to dependency on internals, complex
>>
>> >> >> >> * refactor the code to make it easier to spec
>> >> >> >> ? * pros: more highly decoupled code, simpler specs, fast
>> >> >> >> ? * cons: more work up front, may disregard some of what Rails has to offer
>>
>> >> >> >> Note that the first two options are both brittle, but for different
>> >> >> >> reasons. The first is brittle due to a runtime dependency. That means
>> >> >> >> that when you run the spec the model has to be working correctly for
>> >> >> >> the spec to pass, and a failure could be due to a problem in the model
>> >> >> >> or in the controller.
>>
>> >> >> >> The second is due to a code dependency. That means that when you want
>> >> >> >> to change this code, the spec will have to change as well. This is
>> >> >> >> true of any case in which you use mocks or stubs to varying degrees,
>> >> >> >> and that comes with its own tradeoffs. In this case, the necessary
>> >> >> >> stubbing would be complex and invasive enough that it would be a
>> >> >> >> concern to me.
>>
>> >> >> >> Getting to your original question - what does your spec look like now,
>> >> >> >> and what failure message are you getting?
>>
>> >> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >> >> David
>>
>> >> >> >> > rescue
>> >> >> >> > redirect_to :action => "index"
>> >> >> >> > end

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 13:23:38 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:23:38 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Making sure a action exists (aka specing a
	controller action)
In-Reply-To: <1e5bcefd0907220919j27d73791r711dd5741d31040c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1e5bcefd0907220919j27d73791r711dd5741d31040c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907221023q30576e49rb045f5cd8b7eb203@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Marcelo de Moraes
Serpa<celoserpa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello list!
>
> In my efforts of following BDD in a disciplined manner, I found myself
> needing to spec a Rails action.
>
> The behavior I wanted to test was: "This controller should handle the
> index action", and since it is not good practice to go to the
> implementation before specing, I decided to spec the action too, so I
> could start defining it. I did:
>
> describe MyController do
>
> ?it "should handle get requests to the index action" do
> ? get :index
> ? response.should be_success
> ?end
>
> The problem is the assertion. Even if you don't have the action, the
> http response will be 200 OK. I tried to check for the "Unknown
> Action" text (with the have_text matcher) but strangely enough, even
> if you don't have the action defined in the controller, the response
> body is always empty (which doesn't happen if you request from
> mongrel, which shows an "Unknown action" page.
>
> Any ideas on how I could assert that the index action exists and that
> it fails when it is not there? Maybe this test doesn't make sense? Any
> suggestions welcome!

So it looks like you've uncovered a rspec-rails bug. I'm not sure when
it appeared because I'm pretty sure there was a time when this would
work as you expect, but right now there are no specs for missing
actions - only missing templates - so something in rspec-rails is
consuming the fact that the action is missing.

I added https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645-rspec/tickets/860
- please feel free to follow and/or add comments to that ticket.

Cheers,
David

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

From amkirwan at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 13:33:30 2009
From: amkirwan at gmail.com (amkirwan)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] collection-based finder methods
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907221002q201bf00sb304da527f9d5581@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1b4cae23-0005-4d10-8233-a0b10c071941@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220613p546d6f52y423bcc71b626367@mail.gmail.com> 
	<02cf62a9-ce26-4922-8e08-585741e85355@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907220742p54a02008yf42ff8ab3c987f47@mail.gmail.com> 
	<cfd134ac-240a-4f08-b4a5-19a92573bbea@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907220839j74a7d9e7ob97622d8aee5bf03@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f346f591-046a-4227-bb87-42985331063b@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907220911x2f687f8by2a046c0f42c809ad@mail.gmail.com> 
	<91a5e02f-e4f0-4746-a29c-d5cfeb7fadbc@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907221002q201bf00sb304da527f9d5581@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1650369c-a546-42a6-98cb-40061fc1aa3a@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>

sorry here it is
http://gist.github.com/152123

On Jul 22, 1:02?pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:38 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here is the code,
>
> Where? I don't see code pasted or a link to a gist.
>
>
>
>
>
> > I pasted the letter_controller.rb,
> > letters_controller_spec.rb and the controllers macros.rb, thanks again
> > for your help.
>
> > On Jul 22, 12:11?pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:52 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Okay I get the "and_return" part now thanks.
>
> >> > Here is the error
>
> >> >http://gist.github.com/152061
>
> >> Well, the error seems quite clear. It's expecting a Letter and gets a Person.
>
> >> I know you've posted bits of the code in this thread, but would you
> >> mind posting the entire spec and controller code in a gist? At least
> >> the code related to the show action.
>
> >> Thanks,
> >> David
>
> >> > On Jul 22, 11:39?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Thanks for the help but I guess I am not getting something. How is
> >> >> > @user= = mock_model(Person) and different then the following code:
>
> >> >> This is assigning the mock_model(Person) to a @user instance variable
> >> >> in the spec. This is not the same user that is in the controller.
>
> >> >> > message = mock_model(Message)
> >> >> > Message.stub!(:new).and_return message
> >> >> > message.should_receive(:save)
> >> >> > post :create
>
> >> >> This creates a mock_model(Message) and then tells Message to return it
> >> >> when it receives :new, therefore message in the spec is the same
> >> >> object as Message.new in the controller.
>
> >> >> > def create
> >> >> > message = Message.new params[:new]
> >> >> > message.save
> >> >> > end
> >> >> > I guess I don't understand why assigns[:letter] is expecting a Person
> >> >> > instance instead of a Letter instance
>
> >> >> I'm not clear on what you mean by this. Would you please post the full
> >> >> error message (either here or in a pastie or gist)?
>
> >> >> > On Jul 22, 10:42?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:12 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > My spec is a messed up because I have tried everything I can think of
> >> >> >> > to mock but this is what I have for the show method. The @user
> >> >> >> > instance is setup in the login_and_before_filter_pass macros with the
> >> >> >> > following: @user = mock_model(Person, :null_object => true)
>
> >> >> >> > The error I keep receiving is that assigns[:letter].should equal
> >> >> >> > @letter keeps return that it is expecting a Person object instead of a
> >> >> >> > Letter object. The only way I can get it to pass is by putting
> >> >> >> > @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
> >> >> >> > directly in the "should assign the found letter for the view"
>
> >> >> >> > I feel like I must be missing something about how stubbing and mocking
> >> >> >> > work
>
> >> >> >> > ?# Get /admin/letters/1
> >> >> >> > ?def show
> >> >> >> > ? ?id = params[:id]
> >> >> >> > ? ?@letter = ?@user.letters.find(id)
> >> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> >> > describe Admin::LettersController, "SHOW GET /admin/letters/1" do
>
> >> >> >> > ?before(:each) do
> >> >> >> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>
> >> >> >> This @user is an instance variable in the spec, and is not the same
> >> >> >> @user that is in the controller.
>
> >> >> >> HTH,
> >> >> >> David
>
> >> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> >> > ?def do_get
> >> >> >> > ? ?put :show, {:id => "1"}, @session
> >> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> >> > ?login_and_before_filter_pass(:filter => :admin_only,
> >> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :request_method => :get,
> >> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :action => :show,
> >> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :parameters => {:cas_user => 'ak730'})
>
> >> >> >> > ?it "should be successful" do
> >> >> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> >> >> > ? ?response.should be_success
> >> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> >> > ?it "should find the letter requested" do
> >> >> >> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
> >> >> >> > ? ?puts(@letter)
> >> >> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> >> > ?it "should assign the found letter for the view" do
> >> >> >> > ? ?# uncommenting will allow to pass
> >> >> >> > ? ?# @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return
> >> >> >> > (@letter)
> >> >> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> >> >> > ? ?assigns[:letter].should equal(@letter)
> >> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> >> > ?it "should render show template" do
> >> >> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> >> >> > ? ?response.should render_template("show")
> >> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> >> > end
>
> >> >> >> > On Jul 22, 9:13?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > How do I spec this following example from the Agile Rails Book listed
> >> >> >> >> > below. I am doing a similar thing in my controller and when I
> >> >> >> >> > attempted to change it to the collection way of doing the find I am
> >> >> >> >> > unable to get my spec to pass though I know it is working fine as my
> >> >> >> >> > cucumber features are passing
>
> >> >> >> >> > old rails way:
>
> >> >> >> >> > def show
> >> >> >> >> > @order = Order.find(params[:id])
> >> >> >> >> > end
>
> >> >> >> >> > new rails way collection-based:
>
> >> >> >> >> > def show
> >> >> >> >> > id = params[:id]
> >> >> >> >> > @order = @user.orders.find(id)
>
> >> >> >> >> This code is inherently untestable in an isolated/granular way. Your
> >> >> >> >> options are:
>
> >> >> >> >> * write higher level specs that use real data
> >> >> >> >> ? * pros: simplicity and clarity in both code and specs
> >> >> >> >> ? * cons: brittle due to runtime dependency on correct models, runs slow
>
> >> >> >> >> * write a very invasive spec with complex setup and instance_eval to
> >> >> >> >> set up the @user
> >> >> >> >> ? * pros: runs fast, no runtime dependency on correct models
> >> >> >> >> ? * cons: brittle due to dependency on internals, complex
>
> >> >> >> >> * refactor the code to make it easier to spec
> >> >> >> >> ? * pros: more highly decoupled code, simpler specs, fast
> >> >> >> >> ? * cons: more work up front, may disregard some of what Rails has to offer
>
> >> >> >> >> Note that the first two options are both brittle, but for different
> >> >> >> >> reasons. The first is brittle due to a runtime dependency. That means
> >> >> >> >> that when you run the spec the model has to be working correctly for
> >> >> >> >> the spec to pass, and a failure could be due to a problem in the model
> >> >> >> >> or in the controller.
>
> >> >> >> >> The second is due to a code dependency. That means that when you want
> >> >> >> >> to change this code, the spec will have to change as well. This is
> >> >> >> >> true of any case in which you use mocks or stubs to varying degrees,
> >> >> >> >> and that comes with its own tradeoffs. In this case, the necessary
> >> >> >> >> stubbing would be complex and invasive enough that it would be a
> >> >> >> >> concern to me.
>
> >> >> >> >> Getting to your original question - what does your spec look like now,
> >> >> >> >> and what failure message are you getting?
>
> >> >> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> >> >> David
>
> >> >> >> >> > rescue
> >> >> >> >> > redirect_to :action => "index"
> >> >> >> >> > end
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From amkirwan at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 14:23:41 2009
From: amkirwan at gmail.com (amkirwan)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] collection-based finder methods
In-Reply-To: <1650369c-a546-42a6-98cb-40061fc1aa3a@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
References: <1b4cae23-0005-4d10-8233-a0b10c071941@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220613p546d6f52y423bcc71b626367@mail.gmail.com> 
	<02cf62a9-ce26-4922-8e08-585741e85355@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907220742p54a02008yf42ff8ab3c987f47@mail.gmail.com> 
	<cfd134ac-240a-4f08-b4a5-19a92573bbea@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907220839j74a7d9e7ob97622d8aee5bf03@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f346f591-046a-4227-bb87-42985331063b@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907220911x2f687f8by2a046c0f42c809ad@mail.gmail.com> 
	<91a5e02f-e4f0-4746-a29c-d5cfeb7fadbc@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907221002q201bf00sb304da527f9d5581@mail.gmail.com> 
	<1650369c-a546-42a6-98cb-40061fc1aa3a@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <10b51b5c-e9f6-43dc-bd83-6932fe731b6f@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>

I have also posted the original passing spec and controller before I
tried to change the find to @user.letters.find(id)

http://gist.github.com/152175

On Jul 22, 1:33?pm, amkirwan <amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> sorry here it ishttp://gist.github.com/152123
>
> On Jul 22, 1:02?pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:38 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Here is the code,
>
> > Where? I don't see code pasted or a link to a gist.
>
> > > I pasted the letter_controller.rb,
> > > letters_controller_spec.rb and the controllers macros.rb, thanks again
> > > for your help.
>
> > > On Jul 22, 12:11?pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:52 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Okay I get the "and_return" part now thanks.
>
> > >> > Here is the error
>
> > >> >http://gist.github.com/152061
>
> > >> Well, the error seems quite clear. It's expecting a Letter and gets a Person.
>
> > >> I know you've posted bits of the code in this thread, but would you
> > >> mind posting the entire spec and controller code in a gist? At least
> > >> the code related to the show action.
>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> David
>
> > >> > On Jul 22, 11:39?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > Thanks for the help but I guess I am not getting something. How is
> > >> >> > @user= = mock_model(Person) and different then the following code:
>
> > >> >> This is assigning the mock_model(Person) to a @user instance variable
> > >> >> in the spec. This is not the same user that is in the controller.
>
> > >> >> > message = mock_model(Message)
> > >> >> > Message.stub!(:new).and_return message
> > >> >> > message.should_receive(:save)
> > >> >> > post :create
>
> > >> >> This creates a mock_model(Message) and then tells Message to return it
> > >> >> when it receives :new, therefore message in the spec is the same
> > >> >> object as Message.new in the controller.
>
> > >> >> > def create
> > >> >> > message = Message.new params[:new]
> > >> >> > message.save
> > >> >> > end
> > >> >> > I guess I don't understand why assigns[:letter] is expecting a Person
> > >> >> > instance instead of a Letter instance
>
> > >> >> I'm not clear on what you mean by this. Would you please post the full
> > >> >> error message (either here or in a pastie or gist)?
>
> > >> >> > On Jul 22, 10:42?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:12 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> > My spec is a messed up because I have tried everything I can think of
> > >> >> >> > to mock but this is what I have for the show method. The @user
> > >> >> >> > instance is setup in the login_and_before_filter_pass macros with the
> > >> >> >> > following: @user = mock_model(Person, :null_object => true)
>
> > >> >> >> > The error I keep receiving is that assigns[:letter].should equal
> > >> >> >> > @letter keeps return that it is expecting a Person object instead of a
> > >> >> >> > Letter object. The only way I can get it to pass is by putting
> > >> >> >> > @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
> > >> >> >> > directly in the "should assign the found letter for the view"
>
> > >> >> >> > I feel like I must be missing something about how stubbing and mocking
> > >> >> >> > work
>
> > >> >> >> > ?# Get /admin/letters/1
> > >> >> >> > ?def show
> > >> >> >> > ? ?id = params[:id]
> > >> >> >> > ? ?@letter = ?@user.letters.find(id)
> > >> >> >> > ?end
>
> > >> >> >> > describe Admin::LettersController, "SHOW GET /admin/letters/1" do
>
> > >> >> >> > ?before(:each) do
> > >> >> >> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>
> > >> >> >> This @user is an instance variable in the spec, and is not the same
> > >> >> >> @user that is in the controller.
>
> > >> >> >> HTH,
> > >> >> >> David
>
> > >> >> >> > ?end
>
> > >> >> >> > ?def do_get
> > >> >> >> > ? ?put :show, {:id => "1"}, @session
> > >> >> >> > ?end
>
> > >> >> >> > ?login_and_before_filter_pass(:filter => :admin_only,
> > >> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :request_method => :get,
> > >> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :action => :show,
> > >> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :parameters => {:cas_user => 'ak730'})
>
> > >> >> >> > ?it "should be successful" do
> > >> >> >> > ? ?do_get
> > >> >> >> > ? ?response.should be_success
> > >> >> >> > ?end
>
> > >> >> >> > ?it "should find the letter requested" do
> > >> >> >> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
> > >> >> >> > ? ?puts(@letter)
> > >> >> >> > ? ?do_get
> > >> >> >> > ?end
>
> > >> >> >> > ?it "should assign the found letter for the view" do
> > >> >> >> > ? ?# uncommenting will allow to pass
> > >> >> >> > ? ?# @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return
> > >> >> >> > (@letter)
> > >> >> >> > ? ?do_get
> > >> >> >> > ? ?assigns[:letter].should equal(@letter)
> > >> >> >> > ?end
>
> > >> >> >> > ?it "should render show template" do
> > >> >> >> > ? ?do_get
> > >> >> >> > ? ?response.should render_template("show")
> > >> >> >> > ?end
>
> > >> >> >> > end
>
> > >> >> >> > On Jul 22, 9:13?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> > How do I spec this following example from the Agile Rails Book listed
> > >> >> >> >> > below. I am doing a similar thing in my controller and when I
> > >> >> >> >> > attempted to change it to the collection way of doing the find I am
> > >> >> >> >> > unable to get my spec to pass though I know it is working fine as my
> > >> >> >> >> > cucumber features are passing
>
> > >> >> >> >> > old rails way:
>
> > >> >> >> >> > def show
> > >> >> >> >> > @order = Order.find(params[:id])
> > >> >> >> >> > end
>
> > >> >> >> >> > new rails way collection-based:
>
> > >> >> >> >> > def show
> > >> >> >> >> > id = params[:id]
> > >> >> >> >> > @order = @user.orders.find(id)
>
> > >> >> >> >> This code is inherently untestable in an isolated/granular way. Your
> > >> >> >> >> options are:
>
> > >> >> >> >> * write higher level specs that use real data
> > >> >> >> >> ? * pros: simplicity and clarity in both code and specs
> > >> >> >> >> ? * cons: brittle due to runtime dependency on correct models, runs slow
>
> > >> >> >> >> * write a very invasive spec with complex setup and instance_eval to
> > >> >> >> >> set up the @user
> > >> >> >> >> ? * pros: runs fast, no runtime dependency on correct models
> > >> >> >> >> ? * cons: brittle due to dependency on internals, complex
>
> > >> >> >> >> * refactor the code to make it easier to spec
> > >> >> >> >> ? * pros: more highly decoupled code, simpler specs, fast
> > >> >> >> >> ? * cons: more work up front, may disregard some of what Rails has to offer
>
> > >> >> >> >> Note that the first two options are both brittle, but for different
> > >> >> >> >> reasons. The first is brittle due to a runtime dependency. That means
> > >> >> >> >> that when you run the spec the model has to be working correctly for
> > >> >> >> >> the spec to pass, and a failure could be due to a problem in the model
> > >> >> >> >> or in the controller.
>
> > >> >> >> >> The second is due to a code dependency. That means that when you want
> > >> >> >> >> to change this code, the spec will have to change as well. This is
> > >> >> >> >> true of any case in which you use mocks or stubs to varying degrees,
> > >> >> >> >> and that comes with its own tradeoffs. In this case, the necessary
> > >> >> >> >> stubbing would be complex and invasive enough that it would be a
> > >> >> >> >> concern to me.
>
> > >> >> >> >> Getting to your original question - what does your spec look like now,
> > >> >> >> >> and what failure message are you getting?
>
> > >> >> >> >> Cheers,
> > >> >> >> >> David
>
> > >> >> >> >> > rescue
> > >> >> >> >> > redirect_to :action => "index"
> > >> >> >> >> > end
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 14:33:00 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:33:00 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] collection-based finder methods
In-Reply-To: <1650369c-a546-42a6-98cb-40061fc1aa3a@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
References: <1b4cae23-0005-4d10-8233-a0b10c071941@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<02cf62a9-ce26-4922-8e08-585741e85355@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220742p54a02008yf42ff8ab3c987f47@mail.gmail.com>
	<cfd134ac-240a-4f08-b4a5-19a92573bbea@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220839j74a7d9e7ob97622d8aee5bf03@mail.gmail.com>
	<f346f591-046a-4227-bb87-42985331063b@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907220911x2f687f8by2a046c0f42c809ad@mail.gmail.com>
	<91a5e02f-e4f0-4746-a29c-d5cfeb7fadbc@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907221002q201bf00sb304da527f9d5581@mail.gmail.com>
	<1650369c-a546-42a6-98cb-40061fc1aa3a@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907221133r287af09bx40f35a82d3ce6362@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:33 PM, amkirwan<amkirwan at gmail.com> wrote:
> sorry here it is
> http://gist.github.com/152123

I see find_by_partners_uid referenced in the
login_and_before_filter_pass macro and again in before(:each) - so
there is likely some conflict there. Also, I don't see where
find_by_partners_uid is ever called in the controller.

>
> On Jul 22, 1:02?pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:38 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Here is the code,
>>
>> Where? I don't see code pasted or a link to a gist.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > I pasted the letter_controller.rb,
>> > letters_controller_spec.rb and the controllers macros.rb, thanks again
>> > for your help.
>>
>> > On Jul 22, 12:11?pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:52 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Okay I get the "and_return" part now thanks.
>>
>> >> > Here is the error
>>
>> >> >http://gist.github.com/152061
>>
>> >> Well, the error seems quite clear. It's expecting a Letter and gets a Person.
>>
>> >> I know you've posted bits of the code in this thread, but would you
>> >> mind posting the entire spec and controller code in a gist? At least
>> >> the code related to the show action.
>>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> David
>>
>> >> > On Jul 22, 11:39?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > Thanks for the help but I guess I am not getting something. How is
>> >> >> > @user= = mock_model(Person) and different then the following code:
>>
>> >> >> This is assigning the mock_model(Person) to a @user instance variable
>> >> >> in the spec. This is not the same user that is in the controller.
>>
>> >> >> > message = mock_model(Message)
>> >> >> > Message.stub!(:new).and_return message
>> >> >> > message.should_receive(:save)
>> >> >> > post :create
>>
>> >> >> This creates a mock_model(Message) and then tells Message to return it
>> >> >> when it receives :new, therefore message in the spec is the same
>> >> >> object as Message.new in the controller.
>>
>> >> >> > def create
>> >> >> > message = Message.new params[:new]
>> >> >> > message.save
>> >> >> > end
>> >> >> > I guess I don't understand why assigns[:letter] is expecting a Person
>> >> >> > instance instead of a Letter instance
>>
>> >> >> I'm not clear on what you mean by this. Would you please post the full
>> >> >> error message (either here or in a pastie or gist)?
>>
>> >> >> > On Jul 22, 10:42?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:12 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > My spec is a messed up because I have tried everything I can think of
>> >> >> >> > to mock but this is what I have for the show method. The @user
>> >> >> >> > instance is setup in the login_and_before_filter_pass macros with the
>> >> >> >> > following: @user = mock_model(Person, :null_object => true)
>>
>> >> >> >> > The error I keep receiving is that assigns[:letter].should equal
>> >> >> >> > @letter keeps return that it is expecting a Person object instead of a
>> >> >> >> > Letter object. The only way I can get it to pass is by putting
>> >> >> >> > @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>> >> >> >> > directly in the "should assign the found letter for the view"
>>
>> >> >> >> > I feel like I must be missing something about how stubbing and mocking
>> >> >> >> > work
>>
>> >> >> >> > ?# Get /admin/letters/1
>> >> >> >> > ?def show
>> >> >> >> > ? ?id = params[:id]
>> >> >> >> > ? ?@letter = ?@user.letters.find(id)
>> >> >> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> >> >> > describe Admin::LettersController, "SHOW GET /admin/letters/1" do
>>
>> >> >> >> > ?before(:each) do
>> >> >> >> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>>
>> >> >> >> This @user is an instance variable in the spec, and is not the same
>> >> >> >> @user that is in the controller.
>>
>> >> >> >> HTH,
>> >> >> >> David
>>
>> >> >> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> >> >> > ?def do_get
>> >> >> >> > ? ?put :show, {:id => "1"}, @session
>> >> >> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> >> >> > ?login_and_before_filter_pass(:filter => :admin_only,
>> >> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :request_method => :get,
>> >> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :action => :show,
>> >> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :parameters => {:cas_user => 'ak730'})
>>
>> >> >> >> > ?it "should be successful" do
>> >> >> >> > ? ?do_get
>> >> >> >> > ? ?response.should be_success
>> >> >> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> >> >> > ?it "should find the letter requested" do
>> >> >> >> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>> >> >> >> > ? ?puts(@letter)
>> >> >> >> > ? ?do_get
>> >> >> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> >> >> > ?it "should assign the found letter for the view" do
>> >> >> >> > ? ?# uncommenting will allow to pass
>> >> >> >> > ? ?# @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return
>> >> >> >> > (@letter)
>> >> >> >> > ? ?do_get
>> >> >> >> > ? ?assigns[:letter].should equal(@letter)
>> >> >> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> >> >> > ?it "should render show template" do
>> >> >> >> > ? ?do_get
>> >> >> >> > ? ?response.should render_template("show")
>> >> >> >> > ?end
>>
>> >> >> >> > end
>>
>> >> >> >> > On Jul 22, 9:13?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > How do I spec this following example from the Agile Rails Book listed
>> >> >> >> >> > below. I am doing a similar thing in my controller and when I
>> >> >> >> >> > attempted to change it to the collection way of doing the find I am
>> >> >> >> >> > unable to get my spec to pass though I know it is working fine as my
>> >> >> >> >> > cucumber features are passing
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > old rails way:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > def show
>> >> >> >> >> > @order = Order.find(params[:id])
>> >> >> >> >> > end
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > new rails way collection-based:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > def show
>> >> >> >> >> > id = params[:id]
>> >> >> >> >> > @order = @user.orders.find(id)
>>
>> >> >> >> >> This code is inherently untestable in an isolated/granular way. Your
>> >> >> >> >> options are:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> * write higher level specs that use real data
>> >> >> >> >> ? * pros: simplicity and clarity in both code and specs
>> >> >> >> >> ? * cons: brittle due to runtime dependency on correct models, runs slow
>>
>> >> >> >> >> * write a very invasive spec with complex setup and instance_eval to
>> >> >> >> >> set up the @user
>> >> >> >> >> ? * pros: runs fast, no runtime dependency on correct models
>> >> >> >> >> ? * cons: brittle due to dependency on internals, complex
>>
>> >> >> >> >> * refactor the code to make it easier to spec
>> >> >> >> >> ? * pros: more highly decoupled code, simpler specs, fast
>> >> >> >> >> ? * cons: more work up front, may disregard some of what Rails has to offer
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Note that the first two options are both brittle, but for different
>> >> >> >> >> reasons. The first is brittle due to a runtime dependency. That means
>> >> >> >> >> that when you run the spec the model has to be working correctly for
>> >> >> >> >> the spec to pass, and a failure could be due to a problem in the model
>> >> >> >> >> or in the controller.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> The second is due to a code dependency. That means that when you want
>> >> >> >> >> to change this code, the spec will have to change as well. This is
>> >> >> >> >> true of any case in which you use mocks or stubs to varying degrees,
>> >> >> >> >> and that comes with its own tradeoffs. In this case, the necessary
>> >> >> >> >> stubbing would be complex and invasive enough that it would be a
>> >> >> >> >> concern to me.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Getting to your original question - what does your spec look like now,
>> >> >> >> >> and what failure message are you getting?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >> >> >> David
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > rescue
>> >> >> >> >> > redirect_to :action => "index"
>> >> >> >> >> > end
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From amkirwan at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 15:20:15 2009
From: amkirwan at gmail.com (amkirwan)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] collection-based finder methods
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907221133r287af09bx40f35a82d3ce6362@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1b4cae23-0005-4d10-8233-a0b10c071941@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<02cf62a9-ce26-4922-8e08-585741e85355@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907220742p54a02008yf42ff8ab3c987f47@mail.gmail.com> 
	<cfd134ac-240a-4f08-b4a5-19a92573bbea@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907220839j74a7d9e7ob97622d8aee5bf03@mail.gmail.com> 
	<f346f591-046a-4227-bb87-42985331063b@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907220911x2f687f8by2a046c0f42c809ad@mail.gmail.com> 
	<91a5e02f-e4f0-4746-a29c-d5cfeb7fadbc@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907221002q201bf00sb304da527f9d5581@mail.gmail.com> 
	<1650369c-a546-42a6-98cb-40061fc1aa3a@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> 
	<57c63afe0907221133r287af09bx40f35a82d3ce6362@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a05e5e1c-3c05-4ab9-9e01-904e6ae08307@f33g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>

the find_by_partners_uid is in the ApplicationController before_filter
which handles setting the @user via RubyCAS

I removed some of the duplication since posting. Just some left over
code from when I was trying everything earlier to get this to pass. I
thought it would be easy but didn't realize how difficult this step
would be.

I changed the following in macros to:

  def login_and_before_filter_pass(options)
    before(:each) do
      @user = mock_model(Person, :roles => true, :letters =>
true)
      @user.stub_chain(:roles, :find_by_name => true)
      Person.stub!(:find_by_partners_uid).once.and_return(@user)
    end

That gets me closer I think but I receive a:

should assign @user
undefined method `find' for true:TrueClass which makes sense, just not
sure where to go from here.

On Jul 22, 2:33?pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:33 PM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > sorry here it is
> >http://gist.github.com/152123
>
> I see find_by_partners_uid referenced in the
> login_and_before_filter_pass macro and again in before(:each) - so
> there is likely some conflict there. Also, I don't see where
> find_by_partners_uid is ever called in the controller.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 1:02?pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:38 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Here is the code,
>
> >> Where? I don't see code pasted or a link to a gist.
>
> >> > I pasted the letter_controller.rb,
> >> > letters_controller_spec.rb and the controllers macros.rb, thanks again
> >> > for your help.
>
> >> > On Jul 22, 12:11?pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:52 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Okay I get the "and_return" part now thanks.
>
> >> >> > Here is the error
>
> >> >> >http://gist.github.com/152061
>
> >> >> Well, the error seems quite clear. It's expecting a Letter and gets a Person.
>
> >> >> I know you've posted bits of the code in this thread, but would you
> >> >> mind posting the entire spec and controller code in a gist? At least
> >> >> the code related to the show action.
>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> David
>
> >> >> > On Jul 22, 11:39?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Thanks for the help but I guess I am not getting something. How is
> >> >> >> > @user= = mock_model(Person) and different then the following code:
>
> >> >> >> This is assigning the mock_model(Person) to a @user instance variable
> >> >> >> in the spec. This is not the same user that is in the controller.
>
> >> >> >> > message = mock_model(Message)
> >> >> >> > Message.stub!(:new).and_return message
> >> >> >> > message.should_receive(:save)
> >> >> >> > post :create
>
> >> >> >> This creates a mock_model(Message) and then tells Message to return it
> >> >> >> when it receives :new, therefore message in the spec is the same
> >> >> >> object as Message.new in the controller.
>
> >> >> >> > def create
> >> >> >> > message = Message.new params[:new]
> >> >> >> > message.save
> >> >> >> > end
> >> >> >> > I guess I don't understand why assigns[:letter] is expecting a Person
> >> >> >> > instance instead of a Letter instance
>
> >> >> >> I'm not clear on what you mean by this. Would you please post the full
> >> >> >> error message (either here or in a pastie or gist)?
>
> >> >> >> > On Jul 22, 10:42?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:12 AM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > My spec is a messed up because I have tried everything I can think of
> >> >> >> >> > to mock but this is what I have for the show method. The @user
> >> >> >> >> > instance is setup in the login_and_before_filter_pass macros with the
> >> >> >> >> > following: @user = mock_model(Person, :null_object => true)
>
> >> >> >> >> > The error I keep receiving is that assigns[:letter].should equal
> >> >> >> >> > @letter keeps return that it is expecting a Person object instead of a
> >> >> >> >> > Letter object. The only way I can get it to pass is by putting
> >> >> >> >> > @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
> >> >> >> >> > directly in the "should assign the found letter for the view"
>
> >> >> >> >> > I feel like I must be missing something about how stubbing and mocking
> >> >> >> >> > work
>
> >> >> >> >> > ?# Get /admin/letters/1
> >> >> >> >> > ?def show
> >> >> >> >> > ? ?id = params[:id]
> >> >> >> >> > ? ?@letter = ?@user.letters.find(id)
> >> >> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> >> >> > describe Admin::LettersController, "SHOW GET /admin/letters/1" do
>
> >> >> >> >> > ?before(:each) do
> >> >> >> >> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>
> >> >> >> >> This @user is an instance variable in the spec, and is not the same
> >> >> >> >> @user that is in the controller.
>
> >> >> >> >> HTH,
> >> >> >> >> David
>
> >> >> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> >> >> > ?def do_get
> >> >> >> >> > ? ?put :show, {:id => "1"}, @session
> >> >> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> >> >> > ?login_and_before_filter_pass(:filter => :admin_only,
> >> >> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :request_method => :get,
> >> >> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :action => :show,
> >> >> >> >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :parameters => {:cas_user => 'ak730'})
>
> >> >> >> >> > ?it "should be successful" do
> >> >> >> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> >> >> >> > ? ?response.should be_success
> >> >> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> >> >> > ?it "should find the letter requested" do
> >> >> >> >> > ? ?@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
> >> >> >> >> > ? ?puts(@letter)
> >> >> >> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> >> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> >> >> > ?it "should assign the found letter for the view" do
> >> >> >> >> > ? ?# uncommenting will allow to pass
> >> >> >> >> > ? ?# @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return
> >> >> >> >> > (@letter)
> >> >> >> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> >> >> >> > ? ?assigns[:letter].should equal(@letter)
> >> >> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> >> >> > ?it "should render show template" do
> >> >> >> >> > ? ?do_get
> >> >> >> >> > ? ?response.should render_template("show")
> >> >> >> >> > ?end
>
> >> >> >> >> > end
>
> >> >> >> >> > On Jul 22, 9:13?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> > How do I spec this following example from the Agile Rails Book listed
> >> >> >> >> >> > below. I am doing a similar thing in my controller and when I
> >> >> >> >> >> > attempted to change it to the collection way of doing the find I am
> >> >> >> >> >> > unable to get my spec to pass though I know it is working fine as my
> >> >> >> >> >> > cucumber features are passing
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > old rails way:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > def show
> >> >> >> >> >> > @order = Order.find(params[:id])
> >> >> >> >> >> > end
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > new rails way collection-based:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > def show
> >> >> >> >> >> > id = params[:id]
> >> >> >> >> >> > @order = @user.orders.find(id)
>
> >> >> >> >> >> This code is inherently untestable in an isolated/granular way. Your
> >> >> >> >> >> options are:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> * write higher level specs that use real data
> >> >> >> >> >> ? * pros: simplicity and clarity in both code and specs
> >> >> >> >> >> ? * cons: brittle due to runtime dependency on correct models, runs slow
>
> >> >> >> >> >> * write a very invasive spec with complex setup and instance_eval to
> >> >> >> >> >> set up the @user
> >> >> >> >> >> ? * pros: runs fast, no runtime dependency on correct models
> >> >> >> >> >> ? * cons: brittle due to dependency on internals, complex
>
> >> >> >> >> >> * refactor the code to make it easier to spec
> >> >> >> >> >> ? * pros: more highly decoupled code, simpler specs, fast
> >> >> >> >> >> ? * cons: more work up front, may disregard some of what Rails has to offer
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Note that the first two options are both brittle, but for different
> >> >> >> >> >> reasons. The first is brittle due to a runtime dependency. That means
> >> >> >> >> >> that when you run the spec the model has to be working correctly for
> >> >> >> >> >> the spec to pass, and a failure could be due to a problem in the model
> >> >> >> >> >> or in the controller.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> The second is due to a code dependency. That means that when you want
> >> >> >> >> >> to change this code, the spec will have to change as well. This is
> >> >> >> >> >> true of any case in which you use mocks or stubs to varying degrees,
> >> >> >> >> >> and that comes with its own tradeoffs. In this case, the necessary
> >> >> >> >> >> stubbing would be complex and invasive enough that it would be a
> >> >> >> >> >> concern to me.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Getting to your original question - what does your spec look like now,
> >> >> >> >> >> and what failure message are you getting?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> >> >> >> David
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > rescue
> >> >> >> >> >> > redirect_to :action => "index"
> >> >> >> >> >> > end
>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rspec-users mailing list
> >> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 17:36:49 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:36:49 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Unsubscribing from the list ...
In-Reply-To: <29a0119e0907221413o33eab2c8s57cb20783fb07e77@mail.gmail.com>
References: <29a0119e0907221413o33eab2c8s57cb20783fb07e77@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907221436gd1c34abqc8b3dfd8e4fce76f@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Bryan Ray<bryansray at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm currently subscribed to this list on two email addresses (personal and
> 'work') ... i would like to remove this list from my 'personal' just to
> reduce the amount of email ...
> I have tried using the unsubscribe feature on the web site

When you say "the website" do you mean this:
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users ?

> as well as
> attempting to send an email with "unsubscribe" but it refuses to get me off
> this list.
> Is there a secret that I'm missing? How do I get off this crazy ride?
>
> --
> Bryan Ray
> http://www.bryanray.net
>
> "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build
> bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce
> bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From nathan.benes at gmail.com  Thu Jul 23 12:13:50 2009
From: nathan.benes at gmail.com (nbenes)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] any idea why spec_server gets 'cannot remove
 Object' error?
In-Reply-To: <e1a5e9a00907011157m840041aqdc0fea96f5d9ce62@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7df13a180210246a40d87100c25a9e7d@ruby-forum.com>
	<57c63afe0906230719t211872abm67200c5aa1d22d5c@mail.gmail.com>
	<d7694cfb7b42f4940e9bec73b1b4e1b7@ruby-forum.com>
	<e1a5e9a00906241606nca0db09y17248c1b1d40289a@mail.gmail.com>
	<e4667a8d14cbbd6652bc46e9ae7dba01@ruby-forum.com>
	<e1a5e9a00907011157m840041aqdc0fea96f5d9ce62@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <24629257.post@talk.nabble.com>




Tim Harper wrote:
> 
>> Have you heard of anyone that has rspec/spork/cucumber etc running under
>> cygwin, colinux, andLinux, or Ulteo Virtual Desktop. Do any of them
>> allow for fork?
> 
> yes, yes, yes, don't know
> 
> cygwin is slow, I would avoid it.  andLinux is a ubuntu-KDE
> distribution that uses colinux.  I use andLinux at home, and it's
> simply awesome.
> 
> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> 

Hey Tim, I was trying to get Spork to work on Cygwin (Yes...Cygwin is slow,
hence the desire to get everything going on a DRb).

I installed the Spork gem and setup the files for spec/cucumber just like it
said to.  However whenever I try to use it with either one it doesn't work. 
Spork starts up just fine, but then when I run:

script/spec spec --drb

It fails out on me.  I also tried doing it with autospec (and the proper
changes to the spec_helper file), but same result.

$ spork
Using RSpec
Preloading Rails environment
Loading Spork.prefork block...
Spork is ready and listening on 8989!
      3 [main] ruby 5696 C:\cygwin\bin\ruby.exe: *** fatal error - unable to
remap C:\cygwin\bin\cyggcrypt-11.dll to same address as parent(0x5390000) !=
0x54A0000
     15 [main] ruby 3344 child_info::sync: wait failed, pid 5696, Win32
error 183
    204 [main] ruby 3344 fork: child 5696 - died waiting for dll loading,
errno 11


That's the error I get.  The 3 [main] ruby etc. line shows up when I attempt
to run my specs through it in another terminal.  The next two lines (15 and
204) show up about 5 minutes later if letting it idle.  Any idea on what
it's doing or how I can solve this?

I have rspec 1.2.8
ruby 1.8.7
rails 2.3.2

Supposedly cygwin will support the forking so something tells me this is
another issue entirely.  Any ideas?
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/any-idea-why-spec_server-gets-%27cannot-remove-Object%27-error--tp24162534p24629257.html
Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


From chris at silhouettesolutions.net  Thu Jul 23 17:26:32 2009
From: chris at silhouettesolutions.net (Chris Sund)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] What else should I include in this model spec?
Message-ID: <7801c655-b3c6-4307-b18d-c4714f9e798c@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>

Hey everyone,

I just created a spec for an existing model I already developed prior
to reading the rspec book. I have 5 examples and they are all passing.
I'm just not sure what else I need to add or how I implement it. In
this model I have some methods for adding existing names to an
account, and also geocoding addresses for my google map. Here's my
model code....followed by my current spec file. In my spec file I
basically added my validation information, I'm just not sure how to
add the other stuff.  Any suggestions are appreciated. Keep in mind
I'm trying to get my current app up to date with testing procedures. I
wrote a portion of the app prior to having any knowledge of BDD and
now I'm playing catch up on the testing side of things. In every case
I'm also getting familiar with the ruby syntax - if you see something
seriously wrong let me know.

Many Thanks! - this group is great.


MODEL ACCOUNT.RB------------

class Account < ActiveRecord::Base

  has_many :names, :dependent => :destroy
  has_many :readings, :dependent => :destroy
 
validates_presence_of :s_property_no, :s_service_address, :s_service_address_zip




# On the fly Geocoding
  acts_as_mappable
  before_validation_on_create :geocode_address
  before_validation_on_update :geocode_address


# Thinking Sphinx Search Indexes
    define_index do
    indexes s_property_no, :sortable => true
    indexes s_service_address, :facet => true
    indexes names.name, :as => :property_name

  end


  # adding human attributes to error messages

  HUMAN_ATTRIBUTES = {
      :s_property_no    => "Property Number"
  }

   def self.human_attribute_name(attr)
      HUMAN_ATTRIBUTES[attr.to_sym] || super
  end


  # end human attributes




  def new_name_attributes=(name_attributes)
    name_attributes.each do |attributes|
      names.build(attributes)
    end
  end

   after_update :save_names

  def existing_name_attributes=(name_attributes)
    names.reject(&:new_record?).each do |name|
      attributes = name_attributes[name.id.to_s]
      if attributes
        name.attributes = attributes
      else
        names.delete(name)
      end
    end
  end

  def save_names
    names.each do |name|
      name.save(false)
    end
  end


  # Map Information for Geocoding

def full_address
  "#{s_service_address},#{s_service_address_zip}"
end

private

def geocode_address

if s_service_address_changed? or s_service_address_zip_changed?
geo = GeoKit::Geocoders::MultiGeocoder.geocode(full_address)
errors.add(:address, "Could not geocode address" ) unless geo.success
self.s_latitude, self.s_longitude = geo.lat, geo.lng if geo.success
end
end


end




CURRENT SPEC FILE - ACCOUNT_SPEC.RB ----------------------------

require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper' )
describe Account do


  describe "validations" do

    before(:each) do
      @account= Account.new(:s_property_no
=>"1000", :s_service_address => "1201 Washington
St", :s_service_address_zip => "59601" )
    end


    it "should be valid with valid attributes (property no, service
address and zip)" do
      @account.should be_valid
    end


    it "should not be valid without a service address or zipcode" do
      @account.s_service_address = nil
      @account.s_service_address_zip = nil
      @account.s_property_no = nil
      @account.should_not be_valid
    end

    it "should have one error on service address" do
      @account.s_service_address = nil
      @account.should have(1).error_on(:s_service_address)
    end

    it "should have one error on property number" do
      @account.s_property_no = nil
      @account.should have(1).error_on(:s_property_no)
    end

    it "should have one error on service address zip" do
     @account.s_service_address_zip = nil
      @account.should have(1).error_on(:s_service_address_zip)

    end









  end
end


From chris at silhouettesolutions.net  Thu Jul 23 17:58:07 2009
From: chris at silhouettesolutions.net (Chris Sund)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] Rspec book review...
Message-ID: <80cd3575-b06e-42ee-ade6-194a0860292e@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>

Hey everyone,

I just thought I would provide some feedback on my experience with the
rspec book - I "just" finished it.

 I'll explain my background a little bit so you can see how I was
influenced and how well I feel I absorbed the information. My
background is in desktop application development using Visual Foxpro.
I decided about 6 months "or more" ago I wanted to abandon Visual
Foxpro and start web application development. In my case I have had
"no" experience with TDD or BDD or any type of Test Unit procedures.
As I started down this road I bought just about every Rails book I
could find, and read most of them. Each book kept re-iterating the
fact I needed to write tests. Due to the fact I was new to the Ruby
language I put it off for a while (learning ruby alone seemed like
enough to bite off at the point) and like I said, BDD or TDD was never
a part of my development process in the past.  I finally took the
plunge and Ben Mabey suggested I read the Rspec book to get started.
Now that I finished the book I have to say it was excellent. Although
I don't feel competent to self generate the proper syntaxing in my
spec files, I do understand how they work, and how to implement them.
In addition to the spec files I think I finally understand how to use
this with Cucumber. I feel fortunate that I started down this path
using rspec and cucumber rather than the built in rails test unit and
fixture stuff. I feel the book helped get me started down the right
path and it was definitely well written. For a noob like me, I think
it was an excellent place to start, and it took me from zero knowledge
to a firm knowledge of the process. My only problem now and probably
for the next year is remembering how to implement the proper syntax
for something or where to find it on the web.

In regard to things I "wish" had been covered more - I only wish one
other item was covered a little more in depth. The use of Test Data
builders like Fixjour, Factory Girl, or Object Daddy in conjunction
with Rspec would have been a nice chapter. I'm sure once I want to do
this in my app I will figure out how these tools work.

In any case, the book was great, I want to thank everyone that wrote
it, and a special thanks to Ben Mabey for pointing me to the book. Now
if everyone can deal with all of the questions I'm going to have in
regard to proper syntaxing I will be twice as thankful!


Chris


From celoserpa at gmail.com  Thu Jul 23 19:39:26 2009
From: celoserpa at gmail.com (Marcelo de Moraes Serpa)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:39:26 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] On Mocks vs Stubs in the context of rSpec
Message-ID: <1e5bcefd0907231639mbd7b6fj7477b232cc32c069@mail.gmail.com>

Hello list,

>From what I could see, the lines between mocks and stubs are subtle,
but the general idea I got is that mocks set expectations and stubs
are only dummy objects/method calls. What confused me though, is that
the stub() method is an alias for mock() in
Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods. So a stub is a mock?

Also, another thing that is confusing: You have stub and stub! methods
in the Spec::Mocks::Methods namespace, what is the difference between
Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods#stub and Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub ?

Thanks in advance,

Marcelo.

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul 23 20:33:12 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:33:12 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] On Mocks vs Stubs in the context of rSpec
In-Reply-To: <1e5bcefd0907231639mbd7b6fj7477b232cc32c069@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1e5bcefd0907231639mbd7b6fj7477b232cc32c069@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907231733g24ec75b3w83156245c011fec8@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Marcelo de Moraes
Serpa<celoserpa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello list,

Oi Marcelo,

>
> >From what I could see, the lines between mocks and stubs are subtle,
> but the general idea I got is that mocks set expectations and stubs
> are only dummy objects/method calls. What confused me though, is that
> the stub() method is an alias for mock() in
> Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods. So a stub is a mock?

The conversation about stubs and mocks are usually about Mock Objects
and Test Stubs - i.e. two theoretically different kinds of objects.
The functional difference between them, however, is really at the
_method_ level, and even then, they are mostly the same:

Both Method Stubs (stub()) and Method Expectations (should_receive()):
* respond to a call
* can return a canned value
* can return different values to subsequent calls
* can raise errors
* can yield values to a block
* etc, etc, etc

Only Method Expectations can verify that they have been received. That
is the primary difference between them.

Keep in mind that these ideas evolved and appeared at different times
and as different things, but over time have evolved to nearly the same
thing with the exception of verification.

The primary benefit we get from verification is when we care about a
specific interaction that causes a side effect that we can not
perceive from the object we're dealing with. Let's say we want to spec
that an object logs something in response to a message given specific
conditions:

describe Account do
  it "logs a message when it is queried for its balance" do
    logger = mock('logger')
    logger.should_receive(:log).with(/queried for balance on/)
    account = Account.new(logger)
    account.balance
  end
end

Note that this spec never expects any values on the account itself.
This is the classic example of the use of a mock object, or more
accurately (in my opinion) a message expectation.

Now in cases like we see so often in Rails controller specs, in my
view there is little difference between these two:

describe ThingController do
  describe "GET index" do
    it "assigns all things as @things (using a message expectation)" do
      thing = stub_model(Thing)
      Thing.should_receive(:all).and_return([thing])
      get :index
      assigns[:things].should == [thing]
    end

    it "assigns all things as @things (using a stub)" do
      thing = stub_model(Thing)
      Thing.stub(:all).and_return([thing])
      get :index
      assigns[:things].should == [thing]
    end
  end
end

In this case, the implicit verification in the first example doesn't
buy us all that much, so the second example does a perfectly good job
and is slightly less brittle.

> Also, another thing that is confusing: You have stub and stub! methods
> in the Spec::Mocks::Methods namespace, what is the difference between
> Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods#stub and Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub ?

The original method was stub!, which I will confess to introducing,
and for the wrong reasons, due to my misunderstanding of the meaning
of ! in ruby methods.

I recently added stub (with no !) with no particular fanfare, as I
don't intend to remove stub! (at least not any time soon). Right now
the docs don't make it clear, so I need to fix that - but I'd say that
stub() is the method to use and stub!() is there for backwards
compatibility.

Cheers,
David

ps - seu nome pare?e brasileiro - voc? ??

>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Marcelo.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul 23 20:41:18 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:41:18 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] On Mocks vs Stubs in the context of rSpec
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907231733g24ec75b3w83156245c011fec8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1e5bcefd0907231639mbd7b6fj7477b232cc32c069@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0907231733g24ec75b3w83156245c011fec8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907231741q1dbb02c5na4e08df7d4754a35@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:33 PM, David Chelimsky<dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Marcelo de Moraes
> Serpa<celoserpa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello list,
>
> Oi Marcelo,
>
>>
>> >From what I could see, the lines between mocks and stubs are subtle,
>> but the general idea I got is that mocks set expectations and stubs
>> are only dummy objects/method calls. What confused me though, is that
>> the stub() method is an alias for mock() in
>> Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods. So a stub is a mock?
>
> The conversation about stubs and mocks are usually about Mock Objects
> and Test Stubs - i.e. two theoretically different kinds of objects.
> The functional difference between them, however, is really at the
> _method_ level, and even then, they are mostly the same:
>
> Both Method Stubs (stub()) and Method Expectations (should_receive()):
> * respond to a call
> * can return a canned value
> * can return different values to subsequent calls
> * can raise errors
> * can yield values to a block
> * etc, etc, etc
>
> Only Method Expectations can verify that they have been received. That
> is the primary difference between them.
>
> Keep in mind that these ideas evolved and appeared at different times
> and as different things, but over time have evolved to nearly the same
> thing with the exception of verification.
>
> The primary benefit we get from verification is when we care about a
> specific interaction that causes a side effect that we can not
> perceive from the object we're dealing with. Let's say we want to spec
> that an object logs something in response to a message given specific
> conditions:
>
> describe Account do
> ?it "logs a message when it is queried for its balance" do
> ? ?logger = mock('logger')
> ? ?logger.should_receive(:log).with(/queried for balance on/)
> ? ?account = Account.new(logger)
> ? ?account.balance
> ?end
> end
>
> Note that this spec never expects any values on the account itself.
> This is the classic example of the use of a mock object, or more
> accurately (in my opinion) a message expectation.
>
> Now in cases like we see so often in Rails controller specs, in my
> view there is little difference between these two:
>
> describe ThingController do
> ?describe "GET index" do
> ? ?it "assigns all things as @things (using a message expectation)" do
> ? ? ?thing = stub_model(Thing)
> ? ? ?Thing.should_receive(:all).and_return([thing])
> ? ? ?get :index
> ? ? ?assigns[:things].should == [thing]
> ? ?end
>
> ? ?it "assigns all things as @things (using a stub)" do
> ? ? ?thing = stub_model(Thing)
> ? ? ?Thing.stub(:all).and_return([thing])
> ? ? ?get :index
> ? ? ?assigns[:things].should == [thing]
> ? ?end
> ?end
> end
>
> In this case, the implicit verification in the first example doesn't
> buy us all that much, so the second example does a perfectly good job
> and is slightly less brittle.
>
>> Also, another thing that is confusing: You have stub and stub! methods
>> in the Spec::Mocks::Methods namespace, what is the difference between
>> Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods#stub and Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub ?
>
> The original method was stub!, which I will confess to introducing,
> and for the wrong reasons, due to my misunderstanding of the meaning
> of ! in ruby methods.
>
> I recently added stub (with no !) with no particular fanfare, as I
> don't intend to remove stub! (at least not any time soon). Right now
> the docs don't make it clear, so I need to fix that - but I'd say that
> stub() is the method to use and stub!() is there for backwards
> compatibility.

I misread your question :)

Here's the answer you're looking for: the diff between
Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods#stub and Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub:

Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods#stub creates an instance of
Spec::Mocks::Mock :) Oh the irony. So does
Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods#mock.

Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub (and Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub!) creates a
method stub on self.

HTH,
David

>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> ps - seu nome pare?e brasileiro - voc? ??
>
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Marcelo.
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>

From ben at benmabey.com  Thu Jul 23 20:41:43 2009
From: ben at benmabey.com (Ben Mabey)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:41:43 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] On Mocks vs Stubs in the context of rSpec
In-Reply-To: <1e5bcefd0907231639mbd7b6fj7477b232cc32c069@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1e5bcefd0907231639mbd7b6fj7477b232cc32c069@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A690347.7040609@benmabey.com>

Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> >From what I could see, the lines between mocks and stubs are subtle,
> but the general idea I got is that mocks set expectations and stubs
> are only dummy objects/method calls. What confused me though, is that
> the stub() method is an alias for mock() in
> Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods. So a stub is a mock?
>   
Yes, no, and maybe so. :p  I agree with your general understanding that 
"mocks set expectations and stubs are only dummy objects/method calls".  
The fact that rspec using the same machinery to provide stubs and mocks 
is really inconsequential because the deciding factor of what they are 
is how you use them.  You can, IMO, use a "mock" like a stub and a 
"stub" like a mock.. Take this for example:

describe "#some_method" do
  it "delegates to some_obejct" do
    some_object = stub('some object', :some_method => "foo")
    my_object = MyObject.new(some_object)

    my_object.some_method.should == "foo"
  end
end

We are using a stub as a dummy object, and yet our expectation is 
clearing testing the method call.  So is the above a stub or is it 
really a mock?  I would say that it is acting like a mock.  I hope that 
others on the list will correct me if I am wrong making this 
observation/conclusion.   Likewise we could use a mock as a dummy object 
and never set any expectations on it and it would be acting like a 
stub.  Even though stub and mock is the same in RSpec you should still 
use the correct name when using them.

> Also, another thing that is confusing: You have stub and stub! methods
> in the Spec::Mocks::Methods namespace, what is the difference between
> Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods#stub and Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub ?
>   

Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods are the methods that you can call during the course of a code example.  So when you say stub("something") the method in Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods gets called and returns you a stub.  Now, that stub object now has it's own #stub method which lives on Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub.  That call will stub out the provided method and return value... So my_stub.stub(:foo, "bar"), however that is aliased from #stub! which is used most often.  This is all from memory so I could be wrong but that is the general gist of it.


HTH,
-Ben

From nick at deadorange.com  Thu Jul 23 21:29:02 2009
From: nick at deadorange.com (Nick Hoffman)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:29:02 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Rspec book review...
In-Reply-To: <80cd3575-b06e-42ee-ade6-194a0860292e@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
References: <80cd3575-b06e-42ee-ade6-194a0860292e@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <16827fa20907231829s570c258bpd7c43b4c90606ec@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Chris
Sund<chris at silhouettesolutions.net> wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> I just thought I would provide some feedback on my experience with the
> rspec book - I "just" finished it.
..snip..
> In any case, the book was great, I want to thank everyone that wrote
> it, and a special thanks to Ben Mabey for pointing me to the book. Now
> if everyone can deal with all of the questions I'm going to have in
> regard to proper syntaxing I will be twice as thankful!
>
>
> Chris

G'day Chris. It sounds like you're well on your way towards going
whole hog with BDD. Just keep at it, and it'll feel like second nature
before you know it. You have all of the necessary resources at hand,
and you've done lots of research. Now you just need to become
experienced with BDD, RSpec, and Cucumber. The only way to do that is
to write lots of code, so have fun!
-Nick

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Thu Jul 23 21:47:36 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] On Mocks vs Stubs in the context of rSpec
In-Reply-To: <4A690347.7040609@benmabey.com>
References: <1e5bcefd0907231639mbd7b6fj7477b232cc32c069@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4A690347.7040609@benmabey.com>
Message-ID: <e8a9504e-9827-45af-a183-8cdc31c04c74@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>

On Jul 23, 7:41?pm, Ben Mabey <b... at benmabey.com> wrote:
> Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:> Hello list,
>
> > >From what I could see, the lines between mocks and stubs are subtle,
> > but the general idea I got is that mocks set expectations and stubs
> > are only dummy objects/method calls. What confused me though, is that
> > the stub() method is an alias for mock() in
> > Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods. So a stub is a mock?
>
> Yes, no, and maybe so. :p ?I agree with your general understanding that
> "mocks set expectations and stubs are only dummy objects/method calls". ?
> The fact that rspec using the same machinery to provide stubs and mocks
> is really inconsequential because the deciding factor of what they are
> is how you use them. ?You can, IMO, use a "mock" like a stub and a
> "stub" like a mock.. Take this for example:
>
> describe "#some_method" do
> ? it "delegates to some_obejct" do
> ? ? some_object = stub('some object', :some_method => "foo")
> ? ? my_object = MyObject.new(some_object)
>
> ? ? my_object.some_method.should == "foo"
> ? end
> end
>
> We are using a stub as a dummy object, and yet our expectation is
> clearing testing the method call. ?So is the above a stub or is it
> really a mock? ?I would say that it is acting like a mock. ?I hope that
> others on the list will correct me if I am wrong making this
> observation/conclusion. ? Likewise we could use a mock as a dummy object
> and never set any expectations on it and it would be acting like a
> stub. ?Even though stub and mock is the same in RSpec you should still
> use the correct name when using them.
>
> > Also, another thing that is confusing: You have stub and stub! methods
> > in the Spec::Mocks::Methods namespace, what is the difference between
> > Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods#stub and Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub ?
>
> Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods are the methods that you can call during the course of a code example. ?So when you say stub("something") the method in Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods gets called and returns you a stub. ?Now, that stub object now has it's own #stub method which lives on Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub. ?That call will stub out the provided method and return value... So my_stub.stub(:foo, "bar"), however that is aliased from #stub! which is used most often. ?This is all from memory so I could be wrong but that is the general gist of it.
>
> HTH,
> -Ben

Ben and I are secretly the same person.

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Fri Jul 24 00:59:49 2009
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Nathan Benes)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 06:59:49 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] How detailed should error scenarios be?
Message-ID: <7f3d2246ab54ad81996b502fc8d4a348@ruby-forum.com>

I'm fairly new to cucumber and rspec but so far am falling in love with
both.  I've read up on several different articles concerning these
testing tools including the 'beta' BDD rspec/cucumber book.

I saw this thread here:  http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/183428

Which concerns how small or detailed specs and scenarios should be - and
the basic gist was to keep scenarios at a higher level and leave the
detailed form
fields etc to rspec specs.

This was all wonderfully insightful but it brings me to another
question.  How detailed (or should they be included in cucumber tests at
all?) should the error path be?  "Happy paths" are great to test, but
it's also necessary to test error paths so that users aren't
encountering rails stack traces, empty feedback, etc.

Should there be one scenario per "empty" field?  Should there be one
scenario per validation check per field?  Should it be condensed to a
single scenario that attempts to encompass all error paths?

I have one specific, seemingly overly complicated scenario that attempts
to go the one scenario per validation check per field route:

  Scenario Outline: Add account with invalid fields
    Given I am logged in as BudgetTest
    And I am on the New Account page
    When I fill in the form for account "<account_name>" with valid data
    And I submit the data "<value1>" for the "<field_type1>" field,
"<field_name1>"
    And I submit the data "<value2>" for the "<field_type2>" field,
"<field_name2>"
    And I press "Add Account"
    Then I should see the rendered template for "the new account page"
    And I should see an error indicating "<field_name>" was "<error>"


I've removed the Scenarios:  blocks because they would wordwrap and look
terrible/undreadable.  Following this is two sets of scenarios:

Scenarios: missing required fields

Scenarios: submitting bad data

Some of the fields compare data with each other to determine validity
which is why there's two data entries in the scenario outline.  If the
second is left blank then the defaults that were set in "When I fill in
the form..." are used for it.  Each "Scenarios" block contains a table
with allll of the fields defined by <> in the outline.  As you can see,
it seems to me to be overly complicated, overly verbose, and perhaps
doing more than it should be.

I think maybe this test goes overboard...but what level of detail is
good for error-path testing?
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Fri Jul 24 00:54:08 2009
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Nathan Benes)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 06:54:08 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] <Cuke> How detailed should 'error' scenarios be?
Message-ID: <59f4543d55060d9e49442c33138b67b9@ruby-forum.com>

I'm fairly new to cucumber and rspec but so far am falling in love with
both.  I've read up on several different articles concerning these
testing tools including the 'beta' BDD rspec/cucumber book.

I saw this thread here:  http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/183428

Which concerns how small or detailed scenarios should be - and the basic
gist was to keep scenarios at a higher level and leave the detailed form
fields etc to rspec specs.

This was all wonderfully insightful but it brings me to another
question.  How detailed (or should they be included in cucumber tests at
all?) should the error path be?  "Happy paths" are great to test, but
it's also necessary to test error paths so that users aren't
encountering rails stack traces, empty feedback, etc.

Should there be one scenario per "empty" field?  Should there be one
scenario per validation check per field?  Should it be condensed to a
single scenario that attempts to encompass all error paths?

I have one specific, seemingly overly complicated scenario that attempts
to go the one scenario per validation check per field route:

  Scenario Outline: Add account with invalid fields
    Given I am logged in as BudgetTest
    And I am on the New Account page
    When I fill in the form for account "<account_name>" with valid data
    And I submit the data "<value1>" for the "<field_type1>" field,
"<field_name1>"
    And I submit the data "<value2>" for the "<field_type2>" field,
"<field_name2>"
    And I press "Add Account"
    Then I should see the rendered template for "the new account page"
    And I should see an error indicating "<field_name>" was "<error>"


I've removed the Scenarios:  blocks because they would wordwrap and look
terrible/undreadable.  Following this is two sets of scenarios:

Scenarios: missing required fields

Scenarios: submitting bad data

Some of the fields compare data with each other to determine validity
which is why there's two data entries in the scenario outline.  If the
second is left blank then the defaults that were set in "When I fill in
the form..." are used for it.  Each "Scenarios" block contains a table
with allll of the fields defined by <> in the outline.  As you can see,
it seems to me to be overly complicated, overly verbose, and perhaps
doing more than it should be.

I think maybe this test goes overboard...but what level of detail is
good for error-path testing?
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Fri Jul 24 00:59:04 2009
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Nathan Benes)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 06:59:04 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] How detailed should 'error' scenarios be?
Message-ID: <0f14ddd30b80f4898ee2fbca4573221e@ruby-forum.com>

I'm fairly new to cucumber and rspec but so far am falling in love with
both.  I've read up on several different articles concerning these
testing tools including the 'beta' BDD rspec/cucumber book.

I saw this thread here:  http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/183428

Which concerns how small or detailed specs and scenarios should be - and
the basic gist was to keep scenarios at a higher level and leave the
detailed form
fields etc to rspec specs.

This was all wonderfully insightful but it brings me to another
question.  How detailed (or should they be included in cucumber tests at
all?) should the error path be?  "Happy paths" are great to test, but
it's also necessary to test error paths so that users aren't
encountering rails stack traces, empty feedback, etc.

Should there be one scenario per "empty" field?  Should there be one
scenario per validation check per field?  Should it be condensed to a
single scenario that attempts to encompass all error paths?

I have one specific, seemingly overly complicated scenario that attempts
to go the one scenario per validation check per field route:

  Scenario Outline: Add account with invalid fields
    Given I am logged in as BudgetTest
    And I am on the New Account page
    When I fill in the form for account "<account_name>" with valid data
    And I submit the data "<value1>" for the "<field_type1>" field,
"<field_name1>"
    And I submit the data "<value2>" for the "<field_type2>" field,
"<field_name2>"
    And I press "Add Account"
    Then I should see the rendered template for "the new account page"
    And I should see an error indicating "<field_name>" was "<error>"


I've removed the Scenarios:  blocks because they would wordwrap and look
terrible/undreadable.  Following this is two sets of scenarios:

Scenarios: missing required fields

Scenarios: submitting bad data

Some of the fields compare data with each other to determine validity
which is why there's two data entries in the scenario outline.  If the
second is left blank then the defaults that were set in "When I fill in
the form..." are used for it.  Each "Scenarios" block contains a table
with allll of the fields defined by <> in the outline.  As you can see,
it seems to me to be overly complicated, overly verbose, and perhaps
doing more than it should be.

I think maybe this test goes overboard...but what level of detail is
good for error-path testing?
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Fri Jul 24 01:04:37 2009
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Nathan Benes)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 07:04:37 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] How much detail for error-path scenarios
Message-ID: <7fe1d20a44f7ba1b5eed842ac1d2b610@ruby-forum.com>

I'm fairly new to cucumber and rspec but so far am falling in love with
both.  I've read up on several different articles concerning these
testing tools including the 'beta' BDD rspec/cucumber book.

I saw this thread here:  http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/183428

Which concerns how small or detailed specs and scenarios should be - and
the basic gist was to keep scenarios at a higher level and leave the
detailed form
fields etc to rspec specs.

This was all wonderfully insightful but it brings me to another
question.  How detailed (or should they be included in cucumber tests at
all?) should the error path be?  "Happy paths" are great to test, but
it's also necessary to test error paths so that users aren't
encountering rails stack traces, empty feedback, etc.

Should there be one scenario per "empty" field?  Should there be one
scenario per validation check per field?  Should it be condensed to a
single scenario that attempts to encompass all error paths?

I have one specific, seemingly overly complicated scenario that attempts
to go the one scenario per validation check per field route:

  Scenario Outline: Add account with invalid fields
    Given I am logged in as BudgetTest
    And I am on the New Account page
    When I fill in the form for account "<account_name>" with valid data
    And I submit the data "<value1>" for the "<field_type1>" field,
"<field_name1>"
    And I submit the data "<value2>" for the "<field_type2>" field,
"<field_name2>"
    And I press "Add Account"
    Then I should see the rendered template for "the new account page"
    And I should see an error indicating "<field_name>" was "<error>"


I've removed the Scenarios:  blocks because they would wordwrap and look
terrible/undreadable.  Following this is two sets of scenarios:

Scenarios: missing required fields

Scenarios: submitting bad data

Some of the fields compare data with each other to determine validity
which is why there's two data entries in the scenario outline.  If the
second is left blank then the defaults that were set in "When I fill in
the form..." are used for it.  Each "Scenarios" block contains a table
with allll of the fields defined by <> in the outline.  As you can see,
it seems to me to be overly complicated, overly verbose, and perhaps
doing more than it should be.

I think maybe this test goes overboard...but what level of detail is
good for error-path testing?
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Fri Jul 24 01:27:42 2009
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Nathan Benes)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 07:27:42 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] How detailed should error scenarios be?
Message-ID: <7f3d2246ab54ad81996b502fc8d4a348@ruby-forum.com>

I'm fairly new to cucumber and rspec but so far am falling in love with
both.  I've read up on several different articles concerning these
testing tools including the 'beta' BDD rspec/cucumber book.

I saw this thread here:  http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/183428

Which concerns how small or detailed specs and scenarios should be - and
the basic gist was to keep scenarios at a higher level and leave the
detailed form
fields etc to rspec specs.

This was all wonderfully insightful but it brings me to another
question.  How detailed (or should they be included in cucumber tests at
all?) should the error path be?  "Happy paths" are great to test, but
it's also necessary to test error paths so that users aren't
encountering rails stack traces, empty feedback, etc.

Should there be one scenario per "empty" field?  Should there be one
scenario per validation check per field?  Should it be condensed to a
single scenario that attempts to encompass all error paths?

I have one specific, seemingly overly complicated scenario that attempts
to go the one scenario per validation check per field route:

  Scenario Outline: Add account with invalid fields
    Given I am logged in as BudgetTest
    And I am on the New Account page
    When I fill in the form for account "<account_name>" with valid data
    And I submit the data "<value1>" for the "<field_type1>" field,
"<field_name1>"
    And I submit the data "<value2>" for the "<field_type2>" field,
"<field_name2>"
    And I press "Add Account"
    Then I should see the rendered template for "the new account page"
    And I should see an error indicating "<field_name>" was "<error>"


I've removed the Scenarios:  blocks because they would wordwrap and look
terrible/undreadable.  Following this is two sets of scenarios:

Scenarios: missing required fields

Scenarios: submitting bad data

Some of the fields compare data with each other to determine validity
which is why there's two data entries in the scenario outline.  If the
second is left blank then the defaults that were set in "When I fill in
the form..." are used for it.  Each "Scenarios" block contains a table
with allll of the fields defined by <> in the outline.  As you can see,
it seems to me to be overly complicated, overly verbose, and perhaps
doing more than it should be.

I think maybe this test goes overboard...but what level of detail is
good for error-path testing?
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From ben at benmabey.com  Fri Jul 24 03:10:40 2009
From: ben at benmabey.com (Ben Mabey)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:10:40 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] How detailed should error scenarios be?
In-Reply-To: <7f3d2246ab54ad81996b502fc8d4a348@ruby-forum.com>
References: <7f3d2246ab54ad81996b502fc8d4a348@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <4A695E70.6020702@benmabey.com>

Nathan Benes wrote:
> I'm fairly new to cucumber and rspec but so far am falling in love with
> both.  I've read up on several different articles concerning these
> testing tools including the 'beta' BDD rspec/cucumber book.
>
> I saw this thread here:  http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/183428
>
> Which concerns how small or detailed specs and scenarios should be - and
> the basic gist was to keep scenarios at a higher level and leave the
> detailed form
> fields etc to rspec specs.
>
> This was all wonderfully insightful but it brings me to another
> question.  How detailed (or should they be included in cucumber tests at
> all?) should the error path be?  "Happy paths" are great to test, but
> it's also necessary to test error paths so that users aren't
> encountering rails stack traces, empty feedback, etc.
>
> Should there be one scenario per "empty" field?  Should there be one
> scenario per validation check per field?  Should it be condensed to a
> single scenario that attempts to encompass all error paths?
>
> I have one specific, seemingly overly complicated scenario that attempts
> to go the one scenario per validation check per field route:
>
>   Scenario Outline: Add account with invalid fields
>     Given I am logged in as BudgetTest
>     And I am on the New Account page
>     When I fill in the form for account "<account_name>" with valid data
>     And I submit the data "<value1>" for the "<field_type1>" field,
> "<field_name1>"
>     And I submit the data "<value2>" for the "<field_type2>" field,
> "<field_name2>"
>     And I press "Add Account"
>     Then I should see the rendered template for "the new account page"
>     And I should see an error indicating "<field_name>" was "<error>"
>
>
> I've removed the Scenarios:  blocks because they would wordwrap and look
> terrible/undreadable.  Following this is two sets of scenarios:
>
> Scenarios: missing required fields
>
> Scenarios: submitting bad data
>
> Some of the fields compare data with each other to determine validity
> which is why there's two data entries in the scenario outline.  If the
> second is left blank then the defaults that were set in "When I fill in
> the form..." are used for it.  Each "Scenarios" block contains a table
> with allll of the fields defined by <> in the outline.  As you can see,
> it seems to me to be overly complicated, overly verbose, and perhaps
> doing more than it should be.
>
> I think maybe this test goes overboard...but what level of detail is
> good for error-path testing?
>   

Hi Nathan,
I think testing all of the validations from Cucumber is going overboard 
*unless* the customer wants to see them there.  I have done something 
like that but it was when I was writing my own validation logic (in this 
case I wasn't even using AR or another standard library). It was a nice 
way of showing the customer what were and were not valid values.  
However, if you are using ActiveRecord to do standard validations then I 
see little value in checking each validation separately.  It will take a 
long time to run and it seems like it would really not add much value in 
terms of regression catching beyond what the fast model-level code 
examples would provide. So, like I said, the only value I would see in 
that would be for a customer to see that it is working as they want it to.

In general, I like to keep happy paths in Cucumber features along with 
some special error cases.  Driving though the entire stack is a 
double-edged sword.  It provides great regression testing and is an 
excellent way to frame scenarios for customers.  However, the number of 
execution paths you can execute from such a high level is inherently 
limited... the number of objects and all of there potential states in 
concert with one another results in a combinatorial explosion of number 
of test cases required to test everything.  That is why isolated specs 
on a lower level are still very valuable and for me provide a great deal 
of confidence when used along side some happy-path full-stack tests.  
(And even then you can never test everything...)

Thats my current take on things at least... HTH,

Ben


From matt at mattwynne.net  Fri Jul 24 03:52:01 2009
From: matt at mattwynne.net (Matt Wynne)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:52:01 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] How detailed should error scenarios be?
In-Reply-To: <7f3d2246ab54ad81996b502fc8d4a348@ruby-forum.com>
References: <7f3d2246ab54ad81996b502fc8d4a348@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <D3A33D9C-302A-46EA-A82F-FC3A9240034A@mattwynne.net>


On 24 Jul 2009, at 05:59, Nathan Benes wrote:

> I'm fairly new to cucumber and rspec but so far am falling in love  
> with
> both.  I've read up on several different articles concerning these
> testing tools including the 'beta' BDD rspec/cucumber book.
>
> I saw this thread here:  http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/183428
>
> Which concerns how small or detailed specs and scenarios should be -  
> and
> the basic gist was to keep scenarios at a higher level and leave the
> detailed form
> fields etc to rspec specs.
>
> This was all wonderfully insightful but it brings me to another
> question.  How detailed (or should they be included in cucumber  
> tests at
> all?) should the error path be?  "Happy paths" are great to test, but
> it's also necessary to test error paths so that users aren't
> encountering rails stack traces, empty feedback, etc.
>
> Should there be one scenario per "empty" field?  Should there be one
> scenario per validation check per field?  Should it be condensed to a
> single scenario that attempts to encompass all error paths?
>
> I have one specific, seemingly overly complicated scenario that  
> attempts
> to go the one scenario per validation check per field route:
>
>  Scenario Outline: Add account with invalid fields
>    Given I am logged in as BudgetTest
>    And I am on the New Account page
>    When I fill in the form for account "<account_name>" with valid  
> data
>    And I submit the data "<value1>" for the "<field_type1>" field,
> "<field_name1>"
>    And I submit the data "<value2>" for the "<field_type2>" field,
> "<field_name2>"
>    And I press "Add Account"
>    Then I should see the rendered template for "the new account page"
>    And I should see an error indicating "<field_name>" was "<error>"
>
>
> I've removed the Scenarios:  blocks because they would wordwrap and  
> look
> terrible/undreadable.  Following this is two sets of scenarios:
>
> Scenarios: missing required fields
>
> Scenarios: submitting bad data
>
> Some of the fields compare data with each other to determine validity
> which is why there's two data entries in the scenario outline.  If the
> second is left blank then the defaults that were set in "When I fill  
> in
> the form..." are used for it.  Each "Scenarios" block contains a table
> with allll of the fields defined by <> in the outline.  As you can  
> see,
> it seems to me to be overly complicated, overly verbose, and perhaps
> doing more than it should be.
>
> I think maybe this test goes overboard...but what level of detail is
> good for error-path testing?

The question is difficult to answer as you'll eventually find your own  
balance with this from experience.

As Ben said, Cucumber scenarios are best applied for 'broad brush'  
scenarios that stakeholders care about. Although the stakeholders  
obviously care that this form renders error messages when invalid  
values are submitted, you may well start to bore them when you get  
into the level of detail of specifying each field and the error  
message that goes along with it. So in this instance, it might well be  
OK to have a cuke that tells you whether or not validation is being  
invoked at all, and then rely on specs to detail the way that  
validation is working.

Equally, your stakeholder / customer may be the type of person who  
will trust you better if they can see all the edge cases being  
explored in the cukes. So it depends a lot on the context you're  
working in. If so you can use some of the features of Cucumber like  
scenario outlines and step tables to make these kind of repetitive  
cukes more readable. I'd advise you do go and check out those features  
on the wiki.

Finding and testing for failure cases is something that most teams are  
pretty bad at - unless we have someone of that 'constructive  
destruction' mindset on the team, we often miss these scenarios the  
first time we build a feature. Steve McConnell's 'Code Complete'  
reckons on something like a 5:1 ratio of sad:happy path tests being  
produced by mature test teams, so you're on the right lines by  
thinking about them! What you might find is that writing high-level  
specs (i.e. cukes) for the more obvious failure cases will mean you  
are distracted from seeing other ones. What if someone tries to type  
some javascript or HTML into one of these boxes, for example?

cheers,
Matt

+447974 430184
matt at mattwynne.net
http://mattwynne.net


From celoserpa at gmail.com  Fri Jul 24 12:51:32 2009
From: celoserpa at gmail.com (Marcelo de Moraes Serpa)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:51:32 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] On Mocks vs Stubs in the context of rSpec
In-Reply-To: <e8a9504e-9827-45af-a183-8cdc31c04c74@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
References: <1e5bcefd0907231639mbd7b6fj7477b232cc32c069@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A690347.7040609@benmabey.com>
	<e8a9504e-9827-45af-a183-8cdc31c04c74@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <1e5bcefd0907240951y6728dd0fha5db48731ab27134@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks David and Ben for the comprehensive replies! I really appreciate it :)

These wikipedia articles helped me to understand on the more conceptual level:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_stub
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_object

So, if I understand it right -- Stub is for methods and Mocks are for
roles (or, in the technical-level -- objects).

In the context of rSpec/rSpec-Rails, however,  the API makes it
confusing, to be honest. Being able to create a Mock with
Spec::Mocks:Mock with Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods# confuses me.

The same applies for stub_model() and mock_model(). I know that
mock_model is a convenience method that can be used to create an
object with an API similar to ActiveRecord::Base's. The API says
stub_model is basically the same, but prevents the object from
accessing the database. Ok, but why attaching these concepts to Stub?
Is this the right name to use for this method? (Stub == mock object
that is not allowed to access the database?).

And there's the  Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub method, which is the one
that reflects the concept that "the Stub is a dummy method".

So, in sum, my perception is that rSpec/rSpec-Rails implement all the
functionality needed to implement Mocks and Stubs,  but in a confusing
way. IMHO, the API is not succinct in this aspect -- it does not
communicate a clear distinction between Mocks and Stubs and this makes
it hard for someone new to TDD/BDD to use them in the right way or
decide the best way to use them.

My 0.4 cents of Brazilian Reals.

@David -- yes, I'm Brazilian! You've got a good gut! And I'm glad to
see that you know Portuguese! :)

Marcelo.

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:47 PM, David Chelimsky<dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 7:41?pm, Ben Mabey <b... at benmabey.com> wrote:
>> Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:> Hello list,
>>
>> > >From what I could see, the lines between mocks and stubs are subtle,
>> > but the general idea I got is that mocks set expectations and stubs
>> > are only dummy objects/method calls. What confused me though, is that
>> > the stub() method is an alias for mock() in
>> > Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods. So a stub is a mock?
>>
>> Yes, no, and maybe so. :p ?I agree with your general understanding that
>> "mocks set expectations and stubs are only dummy objects/method calls".
>> The fact that rspec using the same machinery to provide stubs and mocks
>> is really inconsequential because the deciding factor of what they are
>> is how you use them. ?You can, IMO, use a "mock" like a stub and a
>> "stub" like a mock.. Take this for example:
>>
>> describe "#some_method" do
>> ? it "delegates to some_obejct" do
>> ? ? some_object = stub('some object', :some_method => "foo")
>> ? ? my_object = MyObject.new(some_object)
>>
>> ? ? my_object.some_method.should == "foo"
>> ? end
>> end
>>
>> We are using a stub as a dummy object, and yet our expectation is
>> clearing testing the method call. ?So is the above a stub or is it
>> really a mock? ?I would say that it is acting like a mock. ?I hope that
>> others on the list will correct me if I am wrong making this
>> observation/conclusion. ? Likewise we could use a mock as a dummy object
>> and never set any expectations on it and it would be acting like a
>> stub. ?Even though stub and mock is the same in RSpec you should still
>> use the correct name when using them.
>>
>> > Also, another thing that is confusing: You have stub and stub! methods
>> > in the Spec::Mocks::Methods namespace, what is the difference between
>> > Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods#stub and Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub ?
>>
>> Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods are the methods that you can call during the course of a code example. ?So when you say stub("something") the method in Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods gets called and returns you a stub. ?Now, that stub object now has it's own #stub method which lives on Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub. ?That call will stub out the provided method and return value... So my_stub.stub(:foo, "bar"), however that is aliased from #stub! which is used most often. ?This is all from memory so I could be wrong but that is the general gist of it.
>>
>> HTH,
>> -Ben
>
> Ben and I are secretly the same person.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From celoserpa at gmail.com  Fri Jul 24 12:53:42 2009
From: celoserpa at gmail.com (Marcelo de Moraes Serpa)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:53:42 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] On Mocks vs Stubs in the context of rSpec
In-Reply-To: <1e5bcefd0907240951y6728dd0fha5db48731ab27134@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1e5bcefd0907231639mbd7b6fj7477b232cc32c069@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A690347.7040609@benmabey.com>
	<e8a9504e-9827-45af-a183-8cdc31c04c74@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
	<1e5bcefd0907240951y6728dd0fha5db48731ab27134@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1e5bcefd0907240953p41362d1p1152215a419449a7@mail.gmail.com>

>In the context of rSpec/rSpec-Rails, however,  the API makes it
>confusing, to be honest. Being able to create a Mock with
>Spec::Mocks:Mock with Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods# confuses me.

Ops! In this paragraph I forgot to put the instance method name: It
should read Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods#stub

Thanks,

Marcelo.

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Marcelo de Moraes
Serpa<celoserpa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks David and Ben for the comprehensive replies! I really appreciate it :)
>
> These wikipedia articles helped me to understand on the more conceptual level:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_stub
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_object
>
> So, if I understand it right -- Stub is for methods and Mocks are for
> roles (or, in the technical-level -- objects).
>
> In the context of rSpec/rSpec-Rails, however, ?the API makes it
> confusing, to be honest. Being able to create a Mock with
> Spec::Mocks:Mock with Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods# confuses me.
>
> The same applies for stub_model() and mock_model(). I know that
> mock_model is a convenience method that can be used to create an
> object with an API similar to ActiveRecord::Base's. The API says
> stub_model is basically the same, but prevents the object from
> accessing the database. Ok, but why attaching these concepts to Stub?
> Is this the right name to use for this method? (Stub == mock object
> that is not allowed to access the database?).
>
> And there's the ?Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub method, which is the one
> that reflects the concept that "the Stub is a dummy method".
>
> So, in sum, my perception is that rSpec/rSpec-Rails implement all the
> functionality needed to implement Mocks and Stubs, ?but in a confusing
> way. IMHO, the API is not succinct in this aspect -- it does not
> communicate a clear distinction between Mocks and Stubs and this makes
> it hard for someone new to TDD/BDD to use them in the right way or
> decide the best way to use them.
>
> My 0.4 cents of Brazilian Reals.
>
> @David -- yes, I'm Brazilian! You've got a good gut! And I'm glad to
> see that you know Portuguese! :)
>
> Marcelo.
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:47 PM, David Chelimsky<dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 7:41?pm, Ben Mabey <b... at benmabey.com> wrote:
>>> Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:> Hello list,
>>>
>>> > >From what I could see, the lines between mocks and stubs are subtle,
>>> > but the general idea I got is that mocks set expectations and stubs
>>> > are only dummy objects/method calls. What confused me though, is that
>>> > the stub() method is an alias for mock() in
>>> > Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods. So a stub is a mock?
>>>
>>> Yes, no, and maybe so. :p ?I agree with your general understanding that
>>> "mocks set expectations and stubs are only dummy objects/method calls".
>>> The fact that rspec using the same machinery to provide stubs and mocks
>>> is really inconsequential because the deciding factor of what they are
>>> is how you use them. ?You can, IMO, use a "mock" like a stub and a
>>> "stub" like a mock.. Take this for example:
>>>
>>> describe "#some_method" do
>>> ? it "delegates to some_obejct" do
>>> ? ? some_object = stub('some object', :some_method => "foo")
>>> ? ? my_object = MyObject.new(some_object)
>>>
>>> ? ? my_object.some_method.should == "foo"
>>> ? end
>>> end
>>>
>>> We are using a stub as a dummy object, and yet our expectation is
>>> clearing testing the method call. ?So is the above a stub or is it
>>> really a mock? ?I would say that it is acting like a mock. ?I hope that
>>> others on the list will correct me if I am wrong making this
>>> observation/conclusion. ? Likewise we could use a mock as a dummy object
>>> and never set any expectations on it and it would be acting like a
>>> stub. ?Even though stub and mock is the same in RSpec you should still
>>> use the correct name when using them.
>>>
>>> > Also, another thing that is confusing: You have stub and stub! methods
>>> > in the Spec::Mocks::Methods namespace, what is the difference between
>>> > Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods#stub and Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub ?
>>>
>>> Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods are the methods that you can call during the course of a code example. ?So when you say stub("something") the method in Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods gets called and returns you a stub. ?Now, that stub object now has it's own #stub method which lives on Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub. ?That call will stub out the provided method and return value... So my_stub.stub(:foo, "bar"), however that is aliased from #stub! which is used most often. ?This is all from memory so I could be wrong but that is the general gist of it.
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>> -Ben
>>
>> Ben and I are secretly the same person.
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>

From ben at benmabey.com  Fri Jul 24 15:41:40 2009
From: ben at benmabey.com (Ben Mabey)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:41:40 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] On Mocks vs Stubs in the context of rSpec
In-Reply-To: <1e5bcefd0907240951y6728dd0fha5db48731ab27134@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1e5bcefd0907231639mbd7b6fj7477b232cc32c069@mail.gmail.com>	<4A690347.7040609@benmabey.com>	<e8a9504e-9827-45af-a183-8cdc31c04c74@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
	<1e5bcefd0907240951y6728dd0fha5db48731ab27134@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A6A0E74.20801@benmabey.com>

Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:
> Thanks David and Ben for the comprehensive replies! I really appreciate it :)
>
> These wikipedia articles helped me to understand on the more conceptual level:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_stub
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_object
>
> So, if I understand it right -- Stub is for methods and Mocks are for
> roles (or, in the technical-level -- objects).
>
> In the context of rSpec/rSpec-Rails, however,  the API makes it
> confusing, to be honest. Being able to create a Mock with
> Spec::Mocks:Mock with Spec::Mocks::ExampleMethods# confuses me.
>   
Hmm.. I can see your point as far as where the methods live being 
confusing.  Reading about stub method in the RDoc pages for mock methods 
does seem odd.  The reason, as David, pointed out is really more due to 
reducing code duplication between the two.  Any suggestions on making it 
better?


> The same applies for stub_model() and mock_model(). I know that
> mock_model is a convenience method that can be used to create an
> object with an API similar to ActiveRecord::Base's. The API says
> stub_model is basically the same, but prevents the object from
> accessing the database. Ok, but why attaching these concepts to Stub?
> Is this the right name to use for this method? (Stub == mock object
> that is not allowed to access the database?).
>   
I think you raise a good question whether or not stub_model is a best 
name for the functionality it provides.  I think stub_model is really 
called a partial stub.. or partial mock.  Hmm.. I'm not quite sure what 
the correct name is.  But basically, as you said, it is the real object 
but is not allowed to touch the DB.  So it is there for performance 
reasons mostly.  mock_model however gives you a dummy object with some 
predefined stubbed methods that you typically want for an AR object 
(i.e. #id).  However, it is very true that in many cases you will be 
using this "mock_model" as a stub.  I can see how having stub_model can 
cause confusion...

Perhaps, a better API would be to alias stub_model to mock_model (this 
would be more aligned with the #mock and #stub API) and then have a 
partial_stub_model or stub_model(Model, :partial => true)?   Changing it 
now I'm sure would make some people upset but it could be done with 
deprecation warnings if it is causing that much confusion... This would 
really be David's call to make and I'm guessing he had some good reasons 
for making the decision he did in the first place.

> And there's the  Spec::Mocks::Methods#stub method, which is the one
> that reflects the concept that "the Stub is a dummy method".
>   

Again, this is due to the implementation..  I see your point, but I 
don't know if the typical user really cares where it lives.  Perhaps a 
little explanation in the RDoc would be sufficient to avoid confusion?

-Ben

From andy.james.pearson at googlemail.com  Fri Jul 24 17:33:03 2009
From: andy.james.pearson at googlemail.com (Andy Pearson)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:33:03 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] Errors when running AUTOFEATURE=true autospec
	[cucumber, autotest]
References: <834053C3-F615-43B6-8720-99C2E061D98E@andy-pearson.com>
Message-ID: <9C79530D-5D0B-47FF-AA77-869960A86283@googlemail.com>

Hey List,

Hope all is well, I haven't been keeping up with the list whilst I  
wasn't doing much Rails work but I'm back in the game and looking  
forward to seeing how far things have progressed!

I think I have probably mentioned this already on the list, but just  
to reiterate: I am a beginner!

I have installed the new Rspec and Cucumber for use with Rails, and  
did what needed to be done to update libxml2 for use with nokogiri and  
updated to the latest ZenTest but I am still seeing the following  
stack trace when running `AUTOFEATURE=true autospec`

Warning: $KCODE is NONE.
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/ 
step_definition.rb:100: warning: method redefined; discarding old regexp
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/ruby_extensions/ 
string.rb:31: warning: method redefined; discarding old indent
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/ 
node_classes/character_class.rb:13: warning: useless use of a literal  
in void context
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler.rb:5:  
warning: global variable `$exclude_metagrammar' not initialized
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/ 
metagrammar.rb:232: warning: method redefined; discarding old space
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/ 
metagrammar.rb:388: warning: method redefined; discarding old space
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/ 
metagrammar.rb:771: warning: method redefined; discarding old space
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/ 
metagrammar.rb:779: warning: method redefined; discarding old space
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/ 
feature.rb:28: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/ 
feature.rb:36: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/ 
feature.rb:679: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/ 
feature.rb:687: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/ 
feature.rb:813: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/ 
feature.rb:825: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.3/lib/active_support/ 
core_ext/blank.rb:49: warning: method redefined; discarding old blank?

Is this something to be concerned about? The feature examples still  
seem to run but I'm not sure whether I will get problems down the line.

Thanks for any help you can offer,

Andy


From ben at benmabey.com  Fri Jul 24 17:48:31 2009
From: ben at benmabey.com (Ben Mabey)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:48:31 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] How detailed should error scenarios be?
In-Reply-To: <4A695E70.6020702@benmabey.com>
References: <7f3d2246ab54ad81996b502fc8d4a348@ruby-forum.com>
	<4A695E70.6020702@benmabey.com>
Message-ID: <4A6A2C2F.2080609@benmabey.com>

Ben Mabey wrote:
> Nathan Benes wrote:
>> I'm fairly new to cucumber and rspec but so far am falling in love with
>> both.  I've read up on several different articles concerning these
>> testing tools including the 'beta' BDD rspec/cucumber book.
>>
>> I saw this thread here:  http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/183428
>>
>> Which concerns how small or detailed specs and scenarios should be - and
>> the basic gist was to keep scenarios at a higher level and leave the
>> detailed form
>> fields etc to rspec specs.
>>
>> This was all wonderfully insightful but it brings me to another
>> question.  How detailed (or should they be included in cucumber tests at
>> all?) should the error path be?  "Happy paths" are great to test, but
>> it's also necessary to test error paths so that users aren't
>> encountering rails stack traces, empty feedback, etc.
>>
>> Should there be one scenario per "empty" field?  Should there be one
>> scenario per validation check per field?  Should it be condensed to a
>> single scenario that attempts to encompass all error paths?
>>
>> I have one specific, seemingly overly complicated scenario that attempts
>> to go the one scenario per validation check per field route:
>>
>>   Scenario Outline: Add account with invalid fields
>>     Given I am logged in as BudgetTest
>>     And I am on the New Account page
>>     When I fill in the form for account "<account_name>" with valid data
>>     And I submit the data "<value1>" for the "<field_type1>" field,
>> "<field_name1>"
>>     And I submit the data "<value2>" for the "<field_type2>" field,
>> "<field_name2>"
>>     And I press "Add Account"
>>     Then I should see the rendered template for "the new account page"
>>     And I should see an error indicating "<field_name>" was "<error>"
>>
>>
>> I've removed the Scenarios:  blocks because they would wordwrap and look
>> terrible/undreadable.  Following this is two sets of scenarios:
>>
>> Scenarios: missing required fields
>>
>> Scenarios: submitting bad data
>>
>> Some of the fields compare data with each other to determine validity
>> which is why there's two data entries in the scenario outline.  If the
>> second is left blank then the defaults that were set in "When I fill in
>> the form..." are used for it.  Each "Scenarios" block contains a table
>> with allll of the fields defined by <> in the outline.  As you can see,
>> it seems to me to be overly complicated, overly verbose, and perhaps
>> doing more than it should be.
>>
>> I think maybe this test goes overboard...but what level of detail is
>> good for error-path testing?
>>   
>
> Hi Nathan,
> I think testing all of the validations from Cucumber is going 
> overboard *unless* the customer wants to see them there.  I have done 
> something like that but it was when I was writing my own validation 
> logic (in this case I wasn't even using AR or another standard 
> library). It was a nice way of showing the customer what were and were 
> not valid values.  However, if you are using ActiveRecord to do 
> standard validations then I see little value in checking each 
> validation separately.  It will take a long time to run and it seems 
> like it would really not add much value in terms of regression 
> catching beyond what the fast model-level code examples would provide. 
> So, like I said, the only value I would see in that would be for a 
> customer to see that it is working as they want it to.
>
> In general, I like to keep happy paths in Cucumber features along with 
> some special error cases.  Driving though the entire stack is a 
> double-edged sword.  It provides great regression testing and is an 
> excellent way to frame scenarios for customers.  However, the number 
> of execution paths you can execute from such a high level is 
> inherently limited... the number of objects and all of there potential 
> states in concert with one another results in a combinatorial 
> explosion of number of test cases required to test everything.  That 
> is why isolated specs on a lower level are still very valuable and for 
> me provide a great deal of confidence when used along side some 
> happy-path full-stack tests.  (And even then you can never test 
> everything...)
>
> Thats my current take on things at least... HTH,
>
> Ben
>


BTW, please use the cucumber mailing list for cucumber related questions:

http://groups.google.com/group/cukes

-Ben

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul 24 17:56:29 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:56:29 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] unsubscribe
In-Reply-To: <29a0119e0907221134m616899b1ie7241dd3ac57fa1b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <29a0119e0907221134m616899b1ie7241dd3ac57fa1b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907241456i577a2fc3gf945f8f1c383aad1@mail.gmail.com>

Hey Bryan,

Two problems with this request:

1 - it goes to the mailing list, not the admin interface

2 - you're trying to unsubscribe bryansray at gmail.com, but you
registered bryansray+rspecUsers at gmail.com. Please go to the
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users and log in using
bryansray+rspecUsers at gmail.com and you should be able to unsubscribe
there.

Good luck,
David

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Bryan Ray<bryansray at gmail.com> wrote:
> unsubscribe
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From rick.denatale at gmail.com  Fri Jul 24 20:16:51 2009
From: rick.denatale at gmail.com (Rick DeNatale)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:16:51 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Blue-ridge
Message-ID: <deb2337a0907241716w9074bcm399a64a649d9ae8c@mail.gmail.com>

This might be slightly off-topic, but I thought that it might be of
interest for those who aren't already aware.

Earlier this week, Larry Karnowski and Jason Rudolph of Relevance,
gave a talk on blue-ridge http://www.screwcumber.com/

Blue-ridge is a rails plugin which incorporates several JavaScript
testing and execution goodies

  Screw.Unit which despite the name is a very RSpec like bdd library
for JavaScript
  Smoke - a mocha like JS mock library
  Rhino - a JVM based JS implementation
  env.js - A JS DOM implementation

Blue-ridge lets you generate spec templates, and run them from the
command line or with a textmate bundle. The generators also produce
html files which allow the specs to be run in the browser(s) of your
choice.

Nice stuff.

During the talk, I laid claim on the name ScrewCumber for the next
step, although I was quite surprised that it's already trademarked,
albeit for a different field.

http://www.screwcumber.com/

-- 
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

From rick.denatale at gmail.com  Fri Jul 24 20:27:34 2009
From: rick.denatale at gmail.com (Rick DeNatale)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:27:34 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] On Mocks vs Stubs in the context of rSpec
In-Reply-To: <4A690347.7040609@benmabey.com>
References: <1e5bcefd0907231639mbd7b6fj7477b232cc32c069@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A690347.7040609@benmabey.com>
Message-ID: <deb2337a0907241727j22021345o6d9d8ba7f4c38ed3@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Ben Mabey<ben at benmabey.com> wrote:
> You can, IMO, use a "mock" like a stub and a "stub" like a
> mock.. Take this for example:
>
> describe "#some_method" do
> ?it "delegates to some_obejct" do
> ? some_object = stub('some object', :some_method => "foo")
> ? my_object = MyObject.new(some_object)
>
> ? my_object.some_method.should == "foo"
> ?end
> end
>
> We are using a stub as a dummy object, and yet our expectation is clearing
> testing the method call. ?So is the above a stub or is it really a mock? ?I
> would say that it is acting like a mock. ?I hope that others on the list
> will correct me if I am wrong making this observation/conclusion.

Well, I'm not sure.

There's a difference here.

The stub simply sets things up so that IF some_object receives
:some_method it will return 'foo' instead of something else (including
a method_missing error).

If the implementation looks like:

class MyObject
    def initialize(obj)
    end

    def some_method
       "foo"
    end
end

Then the stub object proves nothing, the example will succeed whether
it's there or not.

On the other hand using a mock and setting a message expectation
asserts something about the implementation of some_method and it's
relationship to the intialize method.  It's more gray-box than
black-box.
-- 
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

From codehacker at comcast.net  Fri Jul 24 20:13:04 2009
From: codehacker at comcast.net (norm)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:13:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] basic noob questions
Message-ID: <ef59b369-3513-4ca8-b42b-770965da06f9@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>

Struggling mightily!

Testing a controller called Govtpositions. Just focusing on testing
the create method for the moment. I would imagine there should be two
examples for a successful save... instantiate the model object and
then save it, is that right?

So just to test the model object instantiation, I have:

describe GovtpositionsController, do
  before do
    Govtposition.stub!(:new).and_return(@govtposition)
  end

  it "should create a new govt position model" do
    @govtposition = mock_model(Govtposition)
    @params = {"name"=>"chief"}
    Govtposition.should_receive(:new).with(@params).and_return
(@govtposition)
  end

end

This fails, with the reason that @govtposition is receiving an
unexpected :save. Well I didn't intend to test save, I was planning to
write another example for that assertion. Why can't I just test object
creation in it's own example, must I also test saving in the same
example? I'm clearly missing something basic!

thanks in advance for any insight you can offer

From codehacker at comcast.net  Fri Jul 24 21:40:13 2009
From: codehacker at comcast.net (norm)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] basic noob question
Message-ID: <2eb450d4-b4c4-4b45-a5aa-8819990ac389@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com>

I'm struggling mightily!

I have a controller called Govtpositions, and I'm just trying to test
the standard Rails 'create' method. So it seems as if three examples
would be appropriate... one to test the instantiation of the new model
from the params hash, another to test that it was saved, and then the
final redirection.

So just to test the model instantiation, I have:

describe GovtpositionsController, "POST govtpositions to create govt
new government position" do
  before do
    Govtposition.stub!(:new).and_return(@govtposition)
  end

  it "should create a new govt position model" do
    @govtposition = mock_model(Govtposition)
    @params = {"name"=>"chief"}
    Govtposition.should_receive(:new).with(@params).and_return
(@govtposition)
  end
end

But this example fails due to "Mock 'Govtposition_1001' received
unexpected message :save with (no args)"

Surely I should be able to test the save in a separate example, no? I
was expecting to declare just one expectation per example, with a
total of three for the create method. But the test failure seems to
suggest otherwise.

Any clarification you can offer would be much appreciated.

From bj at aboutus.org  Sat Jul 25 00:45:38 2009
From: bj at aboutus.org (BJ Clark)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:45:38 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] basic noob questions
In-Reply-To: <ef59b369-3513-4ca8-b42b-770965da06f9@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
References: <ef59b369-3513-4ca8-b42b-770965da06f9@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <33BC8120-695D-4F06-810C-FCBB5FF9AFD3@aboutus.org>

Norm,

I don't test instantiation and then saving, I test successful and  
unsuccessful creation.

By testing this concern, I don't need to worry about expectations or  
mocks, I actually create the object (or not!) and then test that the  
controller behaves the way I expect it to in these situations.

Its probably not important that Govtpostion receives "new". It's  
important that when it receives new with the proper things, and then  
saves, that it behaves a certain way. And when it doesn't receive the  
proper things, it acts another way.

Hope that helps,

BJ Clark


On Jul 24, 2009, at 5:13 PM, norm wrote:

> Struggling mightily!
>
> Testing a controller called Govtpositions. Just focusing on testing
> the create method for the moment. I would imagine there should be two
> examples for a successful save... instantiate the model object and
> then save it, is that right?
>
> So just to test the model object instantiation, I have:
>
> describe GovtpositionsController, do
>  before do
>    Govtposition.stub!(:new).and_return(@govtposition)
>  end
>
>  it "should create a new govt position model" do
>    @govtposition = mock_model(Govtposition)
>    @params = {"name"=>"chief"}
>    Govtposition.should_receive(:new).with(@params).and_return
> (@govtposition)
>  end
>
> end
>
> This fails, with the reason that @govtposition is receiving an
> unexpected :save. Well I didn't intend to test save, I was planning to
> write another example for that assertion. Why can't I just test object
> creation in it's own example, must I also test saving in the same
> example? I'm clearly missing something basic!
>
> thanks in advance for any insight you can offer
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

-----
BJ Clark
AboutUs.Org




From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sat Jul 25 00:52:44 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:52:44 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] basic noob questions
In-Reply-To: <ef59b369-3513-4ca8-b42b-770965da06f9@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
References: <ef59b369-3513-4ca8-b42b-770965da06f9@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907242152w641caee5u871e6710a04f9c9d@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 7:13 PM, norm<codehacker at comcast.net> wrote:
> Struggling mightily!
>
> Testing a controller called Govtpositions. Just focusing on testing
> the create method for the moment. I would imagine there should be two
> examples for a successful save... instantiate the model object and
> then save it, is that right?
>
> So just to test the model object instantiation, I have:
>
> describe GovtpositionsController, do
> ?before do
> ? ?Govtposition.stub!(:new).and_return(@govtposition)
> ?end
>
> ?it "should create a new govt position model" do
> ? ?@govtposition = mock_model(Govtposition)
> ? ?@params = {"name"=>"chief"}
> ? ?Govtposition.should_receive(:new).with(@params).and_return
> (@govtposition)
> ?end
>
> end
>
> This fails, with the reason that @govtposition is receiving an
> unexpected :save. Well I didn't intend to test save,

Sure, but if the code does that, then you have to account for it. You
can just stub save and not expect it. That's a perfect case for a
method stub - something unimportant to your example, but necessary for
the example to run.

> I was planning to
> write another example for that assertion. Why can't I just test object
> creation in it's own example, must I also test saving in the same
> example? I'm clearly missing something basic!
>
> thanks in advance for any insight you can offer

Assuming you're dealing w/ a standard create action, IMO, you don't
really need to spec the instantiation of the object. This is one of
those gray areas in which you're touching implementation with stubs
and mocks, but you're not really specifying implementation. i.e., the
examples might read:

GovtpositionsController
  POST create
    with valid data
      creates a new govtposition with the submitted data
      redirects to the list of govtpositions

If you're using mocks/stubs for isolation and speed, you may need to
stub :new if that's what the create method is using, but that's just
there to get the example to execute - not because it's part of what's
being specified. Make sense?

Cheers,
David

From ben at benmabey.com  Sat Jul 25 02:00:05 2009
From: ben at benmabey.com (Ben Mabey)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:00:05 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] On Mocks vs Stubs in the context of rSpec
In-Reply-To: <deb2337a0907241727j22021345o6d9d8ba7f4c38ed3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1e5bcefd0907231639mbd7b6fj7477b232cc32c069@mail.gmail.com>	<4A690347.7040609@benmabey.com>
	<deb2337a0907241727j22021345o6d9d8ba7f4c38ed3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A6A9F65.1040104@benmabey.com>

Rick DeNatale wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Ben Mabey<ben at benmabey.com> wrote:
>   
>> You can, IMO, use a "mock" like a stub and a "stub" like a
>> mock.. Take this for example:
>>
>> describe "#some_method" do
>>  it "delegates to some_obejct" do
>>   some_object = stub('some object', :some_method => "foo")
>>   my_object = MyObject.new(some_object)
>>
>>   my_object.some_method.should == "foo"
>>  end
>> end
>>
>> We are using a stub as a dummy object, and yet our expectation is clearing
>> testing the method call.  So is the above a stub or is it really a mock?  I
>> would say that it is acting like a mock.  I hope that others on the list
>> will correct me if I am wrong making this observation/conclusion.
>>     
>
> Well, I'm not sure.
>
> There's a difference here.
>
> The stub simply sets things up so that IF some_object receives
> :some_method it will return 'foo' instead of something else (including
> a method_missing error).
>
> If the implementation looks like:
>
> class MyObject
>     def initialize(obj)
>     end
>
>     def some_method
>        "foo"
>     end
> end
>
> Then the stub object proves nothing, the example will succeed whether
> it's there or not.
>
> On the other hand using a mock and setting a message expectation
> asserts something about the implementation of some_method and it's
> relationship to the intialize method.  It's more gray-box than
> black-box.
>   

True, but I think the difference is very small in this case.  In the 
delegation example we want to ensure that the other method is called and 
that it's return value is returned.  Adjusting your implementation 
slightly you could still make the message expectation version pass as 
well but still be a false-positive:

class MyObject
    def initialize(obj)
    end

    def some_method
	some_object.some_method
       "foo"
    end
end


In both cases another example would be needed to point out the problem- each of which would rely on returning another canned response.  Of course, using triangulation for something small as delegation is just plain silly. :)  FWIW, I would set a message expectation when specifying delegation.  However, to my point if a stub is being used in this manner I think it is crossing the line of being a dummy object and taking on more of a "mock"ish like role.  Perhaps it is going overboard to say that it is being used as a mock, but the intent feels the same in this case IMO.


-Ben







From andy.james.pearson at googlemail.com  Sat Jul 25 07:57:59 2009
From: andy.james.pearson at googlemail.com (Andy Pearson)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 04:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] Errors when running AUTOFEATURE=true autospec
	[cucumber, autotest]
In-Reply-To: <9C79530D-5D0B-47FF-AA77-869960A86283@googlemail.com>
References: <834053C3-F615-43B6-8720-99C2E061D98E@andy-pearson.com> 
	<9C79530D-5D0B-47FF-AA77-869960A86283@googlemail.com>
Message-ID: <a0714862-94ed-49e9-9fa5-57917d8cacad@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>

Wanted to add some more information to this....

Since Cucumber seemed to be working, I created a feature and used it
to drive the initial creation of a new controller.

Once the route was done I dropped down to a controller spec and wrote
the controller code that makes it pass.

Now when I run AUTOFEATURE=true autospec it dies with the following
stack trace:

Warning: $KCODE is NONE.
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/
step_definition.rb:100: warning: method redefined; discarding old
regexp
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/ruby_extensions/
string.rb:31: warning: method redefined; discarding old indent
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/
node_classes/character_class.rb:13: warning: useless use of a literal
in void context
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler.rb:5:
warning: global variable `$exclude_metagrammar' not initialized
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/
metagrammar.rb:232: warning: method redefined; discarding old space
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/
metagrammar.rb:388: warning: method redefined; discarding old space
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/
metagrammar.rb:771: warning: method redefined; discarding old space
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/
metagrammar.rb:779: warning: method redefined; discarding old space
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/
feature.rb:28: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/
feature.rb:36: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/
feature.rb:679: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/
feature.rb:687: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/
feature.rb:813: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/
feature.rb:825: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.3/lib/active_support/
core_ext/blank.rb:49: warning: method redefined; discarding old blank?
/System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/Versions/1.8/usr/bin/ruby /
Users/andypearson/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.12/bin/spec spec/
controllers/lifestream_controller_spec.rb -O spec/spec.opts
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/rspec-1.2.8/lib/spec/autorun.rb:3:
undefined method `autorun' for Spec::Runner:Module (NoMethodError)
	from /Library/Ruby/Site/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in
`gem_original_require'
	from /Library/Ruby/Site/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in
`require'
	from /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.3/lib/
active_support/dependencies.rb:158:in `require'
	from ./spec/controllers/../spec_helper.rb:5
	from ./spec/controllers/lifestream_controller_spec.rb:1:in `require'
	from ./spec/controllers/lifestream_controller_spec.rb:1
	from /Users/andypearson/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.12/lib/spec/
runner/example_group_runner.rb:15:in `load'
	from /Users/andypearson/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.12/lib/spec/
runner/example_group_runner.rb:15:in `load_files'
	from /Users/andypearson/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.12/lib/spec/
runner/example_group_runner.rb:14:in `each'
	from /Users/andypearson/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.12/lib/spec/
runner/example_group_runner.rb:14:in `load_files'
	from /Users/andypearson/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.12/lib/spec/
runner/options.rb:94:in `run_examples'
	from /Users/andypearson/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.12/lib/spec/
runner/command_line.rb:9:in `run'
	from /Users/andypearson/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.12/bin/spec:4

Odd thing is, rake spec gets me what I want:

...
Finished in 0.071358 seconds
3 examples, 0 failures

Based on this, my assumption is this is something to do with ZenTest,
have I got an incompatible set of gems?

I tried to pull out the most relevant ones:

aslakhellesoy-webrat (0.3.2.1)
autotest-rails (4.1.0)
cucumber (0.3.90, 0.1.16, 0.1.15)
nokogiri (1.3.2, 1.1.0)
rails (2.3.3, 2.2.2, 2.2.0, 2.1.2, 2.1.1, 2.1.0, 2.0.991, 2.0.2,
2.0.1, 1.2.6, 1.2.3)
rspec (1.2.8, 1.1.12, 1.1.11)
rspec-rails (1.2.7.1, 1.1.12, 1.1.11)
treetop (1.3.0, 1.2.4)
webrat (0.4.4, 0.4.0, 0.3.4, 0.2.0)
ZenTest (4.1.3, 3.11.0, 3.10.0, 3.9.3, 3.9.2, 3.8.0, 3.6.1)

Really hoping I can get some help with this, hitting a block like this
gets super frustrating, particularly what I am trying to "do the right
thing" by getting this up and running to I can BDD and hopefully write
better software!

Thanks again in advance,

Andy

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sat Jul 25 08:28:52 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 07:28:52 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Errors when running AUTOFEATURE=true autospec
	[cucumber, autotest]
In-Reply-To: <9C79530D-5D0B-47FF-AA77-869960A86283@googlemail.com>
References: <834053C3-F615-43B6-8720-99C2E061D98E@andy-pearson.com>
	<9C79530D-5D0B-47FF-AA77-869960A86283@googlemail.com>
Message-ID: <86D74248-2CAE-43D7-B6B8-722C96F79AD8@gmail.com>

On Jul 24, 2009, at 4:33 PM, Andy Pearson <andy.james.pearson at googlemail.com 
 > wrote:

> Hey List,
>
> Hope all is well, I haven't been keeping up with the list whilst I  
> wasn't doing much Rails work but I'm back in the game and looking  
> forward to seeing how far things have progressed!
>
> I think I have probably mentioned this already on the list, but just  
> to reiterate: I am a beginner!
>
> I have installed the new Rspec and Cucumber for use with Rails, and  
> did what needed to be done to update libxml2 for use with nokogiri  
> and updated to the latest ZenTest but I am still seeing the  
> following stack trace when running `AUTOFEATURE=true autospec`
> Warning: $KCODE is NONE.

I have no idea about this one offhand.

> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/ 
> step_definition.rb:100: warning: method redefined; discarding old  
> regexp
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/ 
> ruby_extensions/string.rb:31: warning: method redefined; discarding  
> old indent
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/ 
> node_classes/character_class.rb:13: warning: useless use of a  
> literal in void context
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler.rb:5:  
> warning: global variable `$exclude_metagrammar' not initialized
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/ 
> metagrammar.rb:232: warning: method redefined; discarding old space
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/ 
> metagrammar.rb:388: warning: method redefined; discarding old space
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/ 
> metagrammar.rb:771: warning: method redefined; discarding old space
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/ 
> metagrammar.rb:779: warning: method redefined; discarding old space
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/ 
> feature.rb:28: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/ 
> feature.rb:36: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/ 
> feature.rb:679: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/ 
> feature.rb:687: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/ 
> feature.rb:813: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/ 
> feature.rb:825: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.3/lib/active_support/ 
> core_ext/blank.rb:49: warning: method redefined; discarding old blank?
>

The rest of these suggest that the same code is getting loaded twice,  
which could be due to using load instead of require or require  
statements that use relative paths instead of using expand_path or  
relying on the load path.

> Is this something to be concerned about? The feature examples still  
> seem to run but I'm not sure whether I will get problems down the  
> line.
>
> Thanks for any help you can offer,

I'd also run this by the cucumber group at http://groups.google.com/group/cukes 
.

Cheers,
David

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

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sat Jul 25 09:02:33 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 08:02:33 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Errors when running AUTOFEATURE=true autospec
	[cucumber, autotest]
In-Reply-To: <a0714862-94ed-49e9-9fa5-57917d8cacad@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
References: <834053C3-F615-43B6-8720-99C2E061D98E@andy-pearson.com>
	<9C79530D-5D0B-47FF-AA77-869960A86283@googlemail.com>
	<a0714862-94ed-49e9-9fa5-57917d8cacad@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907250602y248b2fdak2b3b32ee3f7d4c69@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Andy
Pearson<andy.james.pearson at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Wanted to add some more information to this....
>
> Since Cucumber seemed to be working, I created a feature and used it
> to drive the initial creation of a new controller.
>
> Once the route was done I dropped down to a controller spec and wrote
> the controller code that makes it pass.
>
> Now when I run AUTOFEATURE=true autospec it dies with the following
> stack trace:
>
> Warning: $KCODE is NONE.
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/
> step_definition.rb:100: warning: method redefined; discarding old
> regexp
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/ruby_extensions/
> string.rb:31: warning: method redefined; discarding old indent
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/
> node_classes/character_class.rb:13: warning: useless use of a literal
> in void context
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler.rb:5:
> warning: global variable `$exclude_metagrammar' not initialized
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/
> metagrammar.rb:232: warning: method redefined; discarding old space
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/
> metagrammar.rb:388: warning: method redefined; discarding old space
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/
> metagrammar.rb:771: warning: method redefined; discarding old space
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/treetop-1.3.0/lib/treetop/compiler/
> metagrammar.rb:779: warning: method redefined; discarding old space
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/
> feature.rb:28: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/
> feature.rb:36: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/
> feature.rb:679: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/
> feature.rb:687: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/
> feature.rb:813: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/cucumber-0.3.90/lib/cucumber/parser/
> feature.rb:825: warning: method redefined; discarding old white
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.3/lib/active_support/
> core_ext/blank.rb:49: warning: method redefined; discarding old blank?
> /System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/Versions/1.8/usr/bin/ruby /
> Users/andypearson/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.12/bin/spec spec/
> controllers/lifestream_controller_spec.rb -O spec/spec.opts
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/rspec-1.2.8/lib/spec/autorun.rb:3:
> undefined method `autorun' for Spec::Runner:Module (NoMethodError)
> ? ? ? ?from /Library/Ruby/Site/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in
> `gem_original_require'
> ? ? ? ?from /Library/Ruby/Site/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in
> `require'
> ? ? ? ?from /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.3.3/lib/
> active_support/dependencies.rb:158:in `require'
> ? ? ? ?from ./spec/controllers/../spec_helper.rb:5
> ? ? ? ?from ./spec/controllers/lifestream_controller_spec.rb:1:in `require'
> ? ? ? ?from ./spec/controllers/lifestream_controller_spec.rb:1
> ? ? ? ?from /Users/andypearson/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.12/lib/spec/
> runner/example_group_runner.rb:15:in `load'
> ? ? ? ?from /Users/andypearson/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.12/lib/spec/
> runner/example_group_runner.rb:15:in `load_files'
> ? ? ? ?from /Users/andypearson/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.12/lib/spec/
> runner/example_group_runner.rb:14:in `each'
> ? ? ? ?from /Users/andypearson/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.12/lib/spec/
> runner/example_group_runner.rb:14:in `load_files'
> ? ? ? ?from /Users/andypearson/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.12/lib/spec/
> runner/options.rb:94:in `run_examples'
> ? ? ? ?from /Users/andypearson/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.12/lib/spec/
> runner/command_line.rb:9:in `run'
> ? ? ? ?from /Users/andypearson/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.12/bin/spec:4

Looks like two versions of rspec are getting loaded:

/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/rspec-1.2.8
/Users/andypearson/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.12

Do you need rspec-1.1.12 for some reason? I'm not sure why it's
getting loaded, but I'm quite confident it won't get loaded if it's
not there :)

>
> Odd thing is, rake spec gets me what I want:

That's because the spec task is only loading one version of rspec. If
you can find what's requiring rspec-1.1.12 you'll find the culprit.

>
> ...
> Finished in 0.071358 seconds
> 3 examples, 0 failures
>
> Based on this, my assumption is this is something to do with ZenTest,
> have I got an incompatible set of gems?
>
> I tried to pull out the most relevant ones:
>
> aslakhellesoy-webrat (0.3.2.1)
> autotest-rails (4.1.0)
> cucumber (0.3.90, 0.1.16, 0.1.15)
> nokogiri (1.3.2, 1.1.0)
> rails (2.3.3, 2.2.2, 2.2.0, 2.1.2, 2.1.1, 2.1.0, 2.0.991, 2.0.2,
> 2.0.1, 1.2.6, 1.2.3)
> rspec (1.2.8, 1.1.12, 1.1.11)
> rspec-rails (1.2.7.1, 1.1.12, 1.1.11)
> treetop (1.3.0, 1.2.4)
> webrat (0.4.4, 0.4.0, 0.3.4, 0.2.0)
> ZenTest (4.1.3, 3.11.0, 3.10.0, 3.9.3, 3.9.2, 3.8.0, 3.6.1)
>
> Really hoping I can get some help with this, hitting a block like this
> gets super frustrating, particularly what I am trying to "do the right
> thing" by getting this up and running to I can BDD and hopefully write
> better software!
>
> Thanks again in advance,
>
> Andy
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From rick.denatale at gmail.com  Sat Jul 25 11:07:54 2009
From: rick.denatale at gmail.com (Rick DeNatale)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:07:54 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] basic noob question
In-Reply-To: <2eb450d4-b4c4-4b45-a5aa-8819990ac389@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
References: <2eb450d4-b4c4-4b45-a5aa-8819990ac389@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <deb2337a0907250807i5d14cd5eyc2dbc644be2a4eda@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 9:40 PM, norm<codehacker at comcast.net> wrote:
> I'm struggling mightily!
>
> I have a controller called Govtpositions, and I'm just trying to test
> the standard Rails 'create' method. So it seems as if three examples
> would be appropriate... one to test the instantiation of the new model
> from the params hash, another to test that it was saved, and then the
> final redirection.
>
> So just to test the model instantiation, I have:
>
> describe GovtpositionsController, "POST govtpositions to create govt
> new government position" do
> ?before do
> ? ?Govtposition.stub!(:new).and_return(@govtposition)
> ?end
>
> ?it "should create a new govt position model" do
> ? ?@govtposition = mock_model(Govtposition)
> ? ?@params = {"name"=>"chief"}
> ? ?Govtposition.should_receive(:new).with(@params).and_return
> (@govtposition)
> ?end
> end
>
> But this example fails due to "Mock 'Govtposition_1001' received
> unexpected message :save with (no args)"
>
> Surely I should be able to test the save in a separate example, no? I
> was expecting to declare just one expectation per example, with a
> total of three for the create method. But the test failure seems to
> suggest otherwise.
>
> Any clarification you can offer would be much appreciated.

Well the controller code doesn't know it's under test so it will call save.

You need to stub out save, probably in the before block, to return true.

Then in the example which expects the save, set a message expectation.

I'm also not sure how your current code is actually working, since,
unless I'm mistaken, the before block runs before the example, and
therefore before you assign a (new?) value to @govtposition, so in the
before block you are stubbing whatever @govtposition refers to at that
point, probably nil.

But I also notice that you are never actually calling anything after
the message expectation, so I suspect that this is a poorly abstracted
version of your actual code.

-- 
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

From celoserpa at gmail.com  Mon Jul 27 12:39:58 2009
From: celoserpa at gmail.com (Marcelo de Moraes Serpa)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:39:58 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] How should you make sure the user is not authenticated
Message-ID: <1e5bcefd0907270939o9037d74k338972d300030499@mail.gmail.com>

Hey list!

Let's say I have a user story for authentication/login.

I have seen many cucumber scenarios like this:

Scenario: User logs in succesfully

Given I am not authenticated
When I go to the login page
...

>From what I have seen, the Given steps that check that the user is not
authenticated, simply post to a logout action. I have seen others,
such as directly checking the session for the user id, even though I
IMHO it is not best practice, since the Given steps are for setting
state for the rest of the steps (right?), and this would simply check
for something, and the test would brake if so.

So, it is not a matter of "checking the user is not authenticated",
but of "setting the ground and making sure the user is not
authenticated", which of course, means loggin out the user on this
given step to make sure it is really not-authenticated. The only thing
I think could go wrong is that some log-out algorithms could fail if
you try to logout when already logged-out.

Anyway, just sharing my thoughts, would love to know what others in
the list think about that,

Marcelo.

From sfeley at gmail.com  Mon Jul 27 13:44:20 2009
From: sfeley at gmail.com (Stephen Eley)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:44:20 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] How should you make sure the user is not
	authenticated
In-Reply-To: <1e5bcefd0907270939o9037d74k338972d300030499@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1e5bcefd0907270939o9037d74k338972d300030499@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1fb4df0907271044v67680fbdjdfab2f2ebfd8e4ef@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Marcelo de Moraes
Serpa<celoserpa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So, it is not a matter of "checking the user is not authenticated",
> but of "setting the ground and making sure the user is not
> authenticated", which of course, means loggin out the user on this
> given step to make sure it is really not-authenticated.

Yes, but POSTing to a logout action seems like overkill.  If a Web
request to a controller action is strictly required, your controllers
are probably doing too much.

The right answer depends on what "authentication" means in the context
of your app.  In most modern Rails authentication solutions there's a
concept of a session, and logging out means getting rid of that
session.  I like AuthLogic because it's simple; the session itself is
a model, and you can treat it as such:

    Given "I am not authenticated" do
      current_session.destroy if current_session
    end

Tweak based on whatever methods/helpers/etc. you're using to track the
current session.    In restful_authentication, there's a
logout_killing_session! method in the library file, which wraps some
loose code to forget cookies and such.



-- 
Have Fun,
   Steve Eley (sfeley at gmail.com)
   ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
   http://www.escapepod.org

From matt at mattwynne.net  Tue Jul 28 04:38:20 2009
From: matt at mattwynne.net (Matt Wynne)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:38:20 +0100
Subject: [rspec-users] How should you make sure the user is not
	authenticated
In-Reply-To: <1e5bcefd0907270939o9037d74k338972d300030499@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1e5bcefd0907270939o9037d74k338972d300030499@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <67F44587-BF8A-4F36-BEE2-140CE470F4DE@mattwynne.net>


On 27 Jul 2009, at 17:39, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:

> Hey list!
>
> Let's say I have a user story for authentication/login.
>
> I have seen many cucumber scenarios like this:
>
> Scenario: User logs in succesfully
>
> Given I am not authenticated
> When I go to the login page
> ...
>
>> From what I have seen, the Given steps that check that the user is  
>> not
> authenticated, simply post to a logout action. I have seen others,
> such as directly checking the session for the user id, even though I
> IMHO it is not best practice, since the Given steps are for setting
> state for the rest of the steps (right?), and this would simply check
> for something, and the test would brake if so.
>
> So, it is not a matter of "checking the user is not authenticated",
> but of "setting the ground and making sure the user is not
> authenticated", which of course, means loggin out the user on this
> given step to make sure it is really not-authenticated. The only thing
> I think could go wrong is that some log-out algorithms could fail if
> you try to logout when already logged-out.
>
> Anyway, just sharing my thoughts, would love to know what others in
> the list think about that,

My equivalent step is implemented like this:

Given /I am not logged in/ do
   # of course you're not logged in!
end


Don't forget the session is thrown away for each scenario, so if  
you're starting a new scenario you wont' be logged in, by default.

cheers,
Matt

+447974 430184
matt at mattwynne.net
http://mattwynne.net


From celoserpa at gmail.com  Tue Jul 28 11:02:54 2009
From: celoserpa at gmail.com (Marcelo de Moraes Serpa)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:02:54 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] How should you make sure the user is not
	authenticated
In-Reply-To: <67F44587-BF8A-4F36-BEE2-140CE470F4DE@mattwynne.net>
References: <1e5bcefd0907270939o9037d74k338972d300030499@mail.gmail.com>
	<67F44587-BF8A-4F36-BEE2-140CE470F4DE@mattwynne.net>
Message-ID: <1e5bcefd0907280802p6bc609c4m49949dc6410b7f71@mail.gmail.com>

>My equivalent step is implemented like this:
>
>Given /I am not logged in/ do
> # of course you're not logged in!
>end
>
>
>Don't forget the session is thrown away for each scenario, so if you're starting a new scenario you wont' be logged in, by default.
>
>cheers,
>Matt

Thank you all for the replies!

@Stephen: Thanks for the tip, this seems like a good approach.

@Matt: Unless you have a a background scenario that logs in the user
for whatever reason :) But yeah, I was thinking to do something like
this.

Thanks,

Marcelo.

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Matt Wynne<matt at mattwynne.net> wrote:
>
> On 27 Jul 2009, at 17:39, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:
>
>> Hey list!
>>
>> Let's say I have a user story for authentication/login.
>>
>> I have seen many cucumber scenarios like this:
>>
>> Scenario: User logs in succesfully
>>
>> Given I am not authenticated
>> When I go to the login page
>> ...
>>
>>> From what I have seen, the Given steps that check that the user is not
>>
>> authenticated, simply post to a logout action. I have seen others,
>> such as directly checking the session for the user id, even though I
>> IMHO it is not best practice, since the Given steps are for setting
>> state for the rest of the steps (right?), and this would simply check
>> for something, and the test would brake if so.
>>
>> So, it is not a matter of "checking the user is not authenticated",
>> but of "setting the ground and making sure the user is not
>> authenticated", which of course, means loggin out the user on this
>> given step to make sure it is really not-authenticated. The only thing
>> I think could go wrong is that some log-out algorithms could fail if
>> you try to logout when already logged-out.
>>
>> Anyway, just sharing my thoughts, would love to know what others in
>> the list think about that,
>
> My equivalent step is implemented like this:
>
> Given /I am not logged in/ do
> ?# of course you're not logged in!
> end
>
>
> Don't forget the session is thrown away for each scenario, so if you're
> starting a new scenario you wont' be logged in, by default.
>
> cheers,
> Matt
>
> +447974 430184
> matt at mattwynne.net
> http://mattwynne.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From codehacker at comcast.net  Tue Jul 28 13:44:37 2009
From: codehacker at comcast.net (norm)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] passing parameters when testing controller actions
Message-ID: <0435a8dc-3742-4fcc-885a-47f7c10009f1@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com>

My grad_surveys_controller has a student_edit method. An id parameter
is passed in the url and a token is passed in a query string. For
example:
          http://www.example.com/students/34/grad_surveys/21/student_edit?token=ab56e1b47
so the params hash should contain
{"controller"=>"grad_surveys","action"=>"student_edit",
"student_id"=>"34", "id"=>"21", "token"=>"ab56e1b47"}

I am trying to test using the following example:

  it "should permit student access with the correct token supplied" do
    GradSurvey.stub!(:accepts_as_authorized).with
(:id=>"1",:token=>"ab56e1b47").and_return(true)
    GradSurvey.should_receive(:accepts_as_authorized).with
(:id=>"1", :token=>"ab56e1b47")

    get :student_edit, {:id=>"1", :token=>"ab56e1b47"}
  end

which fails with the message:
<GradSurvey(... snip... all the fields listed) (class)>
expected :accepts_as_authorized with ({:token=>"ab56e1b47", :id=>"1"})
but received it with ("1", "ab56e1b47")

What is the error in my example syntax that is causing the parameters
not to be correctly recognized.

thanks in advance for any assistance you are able to providd

From celoserpa at gmail.com  Tue Jul 28 14:28:22 2009
From: celoserpa at gmail.com (Marcelo de Moraes Serpa)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:28:22 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Telling rspec that a method might be called with a OR
	b ... ?
Message-ID: <1e5bcefd0907281128n6c7fb480p2be8d268bed17ff8@mail.gmail.com>

Hey list,

Let's say I have a model, and I want to setup a partial mock in it, to
set the expectation that it should receive a message with specific
arguments. I know that this is not a good design for a spec, and that
I would probably need to separate this in another example -- but let's
say that I would like to express in the example that this partial mock
could receive this message with agument a OR b. I had a situation
where I have setup the should receive with a specific argument, but
later on in the code flow, the class received the same message (find)
with other arguments, which was breaking the spec. The null_object
pattern would not work, because afaik, it is only for messages and not
for arguments. Any way to tell rspec that a method might be called
with argument A or B (or C) ? :)

Thanks in advance,

MArcelo.

From r_j_h_box-sf at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 28 15:18:30 2009
From: r_j_h_box-sf at yahoo.com (r_j_h_box-sf at yahoo.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] How should you make sure the user is not
	authenticated
In-Reply-To: <67F44587-BF8A-4F36-BEE2-140CE470F4DE@mattwynne.net>
References: <1e5bcefd0907270939o9037d74k338972d300030499@mail.gmail.com>
	<67F44587-BF8A-4F36-BEE2-140CE470F4DE@mattwynne.net>
Message-ID: <274777.32876.qm@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com>





----- Original Message ----
> From: Matt Wynne <matt at mattwynne.net>

> Don't forget the session is thrown away for each scenario, so if you're starting 
> a new scenario you wont' be logged in, by default.

I wonder if that is true also when Webrat/Selenium or Celerity is involved?

Randy


From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jul 28 16:57:56 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:57:56 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Telling rspec that a method might be called with
	a OR b ... ?
In-Reply-To: <1e5bcefd0907281128n6c7fb480p2be8d268bed17ff8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1e5bcefd0907281128n6c7fb480p2be8d268bed17ff8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907281357n3b76d23eic87362a4f0b3d2f9@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Marcelo de Moraes
Serpa<celoserpa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey list,
>
> Let's say I have a model, and I want to setup a partial mock in it, to
> set the expectation that it should receive a message with specific
> arguments. I know that this is not a good design for a spec, and that
> I would probably need to separate this in another example -- but let's
> say that I would like to express in the example that this partial mock
> could receive this message with agument a OR b. I had a situation
> where I have setup the should receive with a specific argument, but
> later on in the code flow, the class received the same message (find)
> with other arguments, which was breaking the spec. The null_object
> pattern would not work, because afaik, it is only for messages and not
> for arguments. Any way to tell rspec that a method might be called
> with argument A or B (or C) ? :)

There is no way to specify A or B, but you can stub both and set
expectations about the resulting behavior that tie back to the stub
values you set up. For example:

@thing = stub_model(Thing)
Thing.stub!(:new).and_return(@thing)
Thing.stub!(:create).and_return(@thing)
Thing.stub!(:create!).and_return(@thing)

If you do that in a before(:each) block, now the implementation can
use any of those methods and set expectations like
assigns[:thing].should == @thing, etc. This effectively does what you
are doing, but not in the most explicit way.

HTH,
David

>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> MArcelo.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From hayafirst at gmail.com  Tue Jul 28 16:59:06 2009
From: hayafirst at gmail.com (Yi Wen)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:59:06 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] [cucumber] table.hashes
Message-ID: <23E450FC-AAA9-4570-88E6-7FF01982550F@gmail.com>

Hi,

I had a couple features failed with cucumber 0.3.90 because  
table.hashes is frozen so I cannot change the hashes anymore. Just  
wonder what's the reason behind the change? Thanks

Yi

  

From ben at benmabey.com  Tue Jul 28 17:34:53 2009
From: ben at benmabey.com (Ben Mabey)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:34:53 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] [cucumber] table.hashes
In-Reply-To: <23E450FC-AAA9-4570-88E6-7FF01982550F@gmail.com>
References: <23E450FC-AAA9-4570-88E6-7FF01982550F@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A6F6EFD.10507@benmabey.com>

Yi Wen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had a couple features failed with cucumber 0.3.90 because 
> table.hashes is frozen so I cannot change the hashes anymore. Just 
> wonder what's the reason behind the change? Thanks
>
> Yi
>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


This change was added to avoid unintended side effects... I can't 
remember the exact use case though.  If you need to modify it call #dup 
on the hashes first.  Also, please use Cucumber's mailing list in the 
future:

http://groups.google.com/group/cukes

Thanks,
Ben

From andy.james.pearson at googlemail.com  Tue Jul 28 17:09:30 2009
From: andy.james.pearson at googlemail.com (Andy Pearson)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] Errors when running AUTOFEATURE=true autospec
	[cucumber, autotest]
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907250602y248b2fdak2b3b32ee3f7d4c69@mail.gmail.com>
References: <834053C3-F615-43B6-8720-99C2E061D98E@andy-pearson.com> 
	<9C79530D-5D0B-47FF-AA77-869960A86283@googlemail.com>
	<a0714862-94ed-49e9-9fa5-57917d8cacad@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907250602y248b2fdak2b3b32ee3f7d4c69@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <06361f60-5cd2-4191-9626-8d5e14646075@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>

Hey David,

> Looks like two versions of rspec are getting loaded:
>
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/rspec-1.2.8
> /Users/andypearson/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-1.1.12
>
> Do you need rspec-1.1.12 for some reason? I'm not sure why it's
> getting loaded, but I'm quite confident it won't get loaded if it's
> not there :)

Yup, that seemed to be the problem, I removed respec-1.1.12 from my
home directory (I'm guessing I tried to install rspec without `sudo`
at some point) and now my specs are running fine.

Still having the problem with cucumber but I will post on that list
and see if anyone there can help me, sorry to clutter up this list -
last time I was here there was a discussion to see whether the lists
should be split or not, looks like you all came to a decision :)

Thanks for your time,

Andy

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Tue Jul 28 17:38:35 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:38:35 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] [cucumber] table.hashes
In-Reply-To: <23E450FC-AAA9-4570-88E6-7FF01982550F@gmail.com>
References: <23E450FC-AAA9-4570-88E6-7FF01982550F@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CF838FC0-F613-483E-9EDD-EC305A502D50@gmail.com>

On Jul 28, 2009, at 4:59 PM, Yi Wen <hayafirst at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I had a couple features failed with cucumber 0.3.90 because  
> table.hashes is frozen so I cannot change the hashes anymore. Just  
> wonder what's the reason behind the change? Thanks
>
> Yi

Please address cucumber questions to the cukes google group:

http://groups.google.com/group/cukes

Cheers,
David

>

From rick.denatale at gmail.com  Tue Jul 28 17:38:32 2009
From: rick.denatale at gmail.com (Rick DeNatale)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:38:32 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Telling rspec that a method might be called with
	a OR b ... ?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907281357n3b76d23eic87362a4f0b3d2f9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1e5bcefd0907281128n6c7fb480p2be8d268bed17ff8@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0907281357n3b76d23eic87362a4f0b3d2f9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deb2337a0907281438j664738b2x764feb66b175b4fc@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:57 PM, David Chelimsky<dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>> for arguments. Any way to tell rspec that a method might be called
>> with argument A or B (or C) ? :)
>
> There is no way to specify A or B, but you can stub both and set
> expectations about the resulting behavior that tie back to the stub
> values you set up. For example:
>
> @thing = stub_model(Thing)
> Thing.stub!(:new).and_return(@thing)
> Thing.stub!(:create).and_return(@thing)
> Thing.stub!(:create!).and_return(@thing)
>
> If you do that in a before(:each) block, now the implementation can
> use any of those methods and set expectations like
> assigns[:thing].should == @thing, etc. This effectively does what you
> are doing, but not in the most explicit way.

I think though that the OP want's to set a message expectation with
variation on the arguments, NOT which message.

Something like

   @some_object.should_receive(:some_message).with(any_of(a, b, c))

As long as you don't need to set different return values for different
arguments, that could be done with a new ArgumentMatcher.

-- 
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

From rogerpack2005 at gmail.com  Tue Jul 28 20:03:24 2009
From: rogerpack2005 at gmail.com (rogerdpack)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] error message feedback
Message-ID: <fda07bb7-0fbd-4bfc-bbc3-e0e067ec9354@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>

Question.

Currently with this test:

 instance.splatted3().should raise_error(ArgumentError)

if it's broken, and returns [] instead of raising appropriately,
currently the error reported is:

expected ArgumentError, got #<NoMethodError: undefined method `call'
for []:Array>

shouldn't this have been reported as

expected ArgumentError, got []

?
Much thanks.
=r

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 29 08:10:30 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:10:30 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] passing parameters when testing controller actions
In-Reply-To: <0435a8dc-3742-4fcc-885a-47f7c10009f1@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
References: <0435a8dc-3742-4fcc-885a-47f7c10009f1@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907290510s158eb5d8o383154307d08a396@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:44 PM, norm<codehacker at comcast.net> wrote:
> My grad_surveys_controller has a student_edit method. An id parameter
> is passed in the url and a token is passed in a query string. For
> example:
> ? ? ? ? ?http://www.example.com/students/34/grad_surveys/21/student_edit?token=ab56e1b47
> so the params hash should contain
> {"controller"=>"grad_surveys","action"=>"student_edit",
> "student_id"=>"34", "id"=>"21", "token"=>"ab56e1b47"}
>
> I am trying to test using the following example:
>
> ?it "should permit student access with the correct token supplied" do
> ? ?GradSurvey.stub!(:accepts_as_authorized).with
> (:id=>"1",:token=>"ab56e1b47").and_return(true)
> ? ?GradSurvey.should_receive(:accepts_as_authorized).with
> (:id=>"1", :token=>"ab56e1b47")

Why are you using both stub!() and should_receive() here? The
should_receive() call essentially overrides stub!(), so stub!() has no
effect in this example.

> ? ?get :student_edit, {:id=>"1", :token=>"ab56e1b47"}
> ?end
>
> which fails with the message:
> <GradSurvey(... snip... all the fields listed) (class)>
> expected :accepts_as_authorized with ({:token=>"ab56e1b47", :id=>"1"})
> but received it with ("1", "ab56e1b47")
>
> What is the error in my example syntax that is causing the parameters
> not to be correctly recognized.
>
> thanks in advance for any assistance you are able to provide

The error says that it's expecting {:token=>"ab56e1b47", :id=>"1"},
which looks correct based on the line that's setting up the
expectation. So I think the problem may be with the code, not the
spec. Can you post the controller code?

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 29 08:12:36 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:12:36 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] error message feedback
In-Reply-To: <fda07bb7-0fbd-4bfc-bbc3-e0e067ec9354@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
References: <fda07bb7-0fbd-4bfc-bbc3-e0e067ec9354@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907290512g6487bb5bn306b624268364bf2@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:03 PM, rogerdpack<rogerpack2005 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Question.
>
> Currently with this test:
>
> ?instance.splatted3().should raise_error(ArgumentError)

This should be:

  lambda { instance.splatted3() }.should raise_error(ArgumentError)

See http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rspec/1.2.8/classes/Spec/Matchers.html#M000450
for more info.

HTH,
David

>
> if it's broken, and returns [] instead of raising appropriately,
> currently the error reported is:
>
> expected ArgumentError, got #<NoMethodError: undefined method `call'
> for []:Array>
>
> shouldn't this have been reported as
>
> expected ArgumentError, got []
>
> ?
> Much thanks.
> =r
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From codehacker at comcast.net  Wed Jul 29 08:51:53 2009
From: codehacker at comcast.net (norm)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] passing parameters when testing controller actions
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0907290510s158eb5d8o383154307d08a396@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0435a8dc-3742-4fcc-885a-47f7c10009f1@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907290510s158eb5d8o383154307d08a396@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <73f8c98d-7fd7-4191-841b-6cc22f6705a3@p10g2000prm.googlegroups.com>

wow, thanks for the tips David. I'm using both the stub!() and the
should_receive() because, as a complete RSpec neophyte, that's what I
thought was required! (And it seemed to work, too!).

I didn't suspect the controller code, because it's code that works.
But with your suggestion, I found the discrepancy between the
controller code and the spec... the error message was telling me but I
wasn't seeing it!

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Wed Jul 29 08:53:36 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:53:36 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] passing parameters when testing controller actions
In-Reply-To: <73f8c98d-7fd7-4191-841b-6cc22f6705a3@p10g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
References: <0435a8dc-3742-4fcc-885a-47f7c10009f1@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
	<57c63afe0907290510s158eb5d8o383154307d08a396@mail.gmail.com>
	<73f8c98d-7fd7-4191-841b-6cc22f6705a3@p10g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907290553s1b3e963cq3c7ab645926b7b92@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:51 AM, norm<codehacker at comcast.net> wrote:
> wow, thanks for the tips David. I'm using both the stub!() and the
> should_receive() because, as a complete RSpec neophyte, that's what I
> thought was required! (And it seemed to work, too!).
>
> I didn't suspect the controller code, because it's code that works.
> But with your suggestion, I found the discrepancy between the
> controller code and the spec... the error message was telling me but I
> wasn't seeing it!

Glad to hear you've got it sorted out.

Cheers,
David

From andy.james.pearson at googlemail.com  Thu Jul 30 17:56:03 2009
From: andy.james.pearson at googlemail.com (Andy Pearson)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] [rspec, rails] A quick code review, to help a beginner
Message-ID: <e24f1361-b8ba-4d2a-8fbb-d73e5e2e3569@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>

Hey List,

This is probably a bit cheeky, but I thought it may be worth a try.

I have just started a new rails app, which I am going to try and drive
with Rspec and Cucumber as best as I can.

I have just finished a couple of tests, and a couple of lines of a
Model and I was wondering whether I could get a bit of feedback on
what I have written so far, before I go down to totally wrong route.

- How are my specs?
- Am I testing the right things?
- could things be done better?
- Am I being too broad, or too granular?

I have created a Gist at of the spec and the resulting code at:
http://gist.github.com/158954

Kind of off topic but, is there a "more Ruby" way of doing the
self.download method? It feels very PHP (my native language) - setting
an empty Array and then filling it up.

I realise this is very focused on just my code, so if this is too much
to ask, then please let me know and I will move along :)

Andy

From codehacker at comcast.net  Thu Jul 30 19:13:30 2009
From: codehacker at comcast.net (norm)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] stubbing association methods in controller spec
Message-ID: <1e82ef7d-557d-47d1-864f-b4a8aff90cad@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>

I have two models:
  Student has_many=>:grad_surveys
    and
  GradSurvey belongs_to=>:student

I am testing the GradSurveysController#update method with

  it "should only allow update if the correct token is presented" do
    @params = {:id=>"1", :token=>"ab56e1b47", :survey=>{}}
    @mock_grad_survey = mock_model(GradSurvey)
    GradSurvey.should_receive(:accepts_as_authorized).with(@params
[:id], at params[:token]).and_return(@mock_grad_survey)
    put :update, @params
    response.should render_template(:update)
  end

Inside the GradSurvey#accepts_as_authorized method is called the
GradSurvey#student method. The test above fails with the message:
         Mock 'GradSurvey_1034' received unexpected message :student
with (no args)

However I can make the test pass by adding the :student method to the
@mock_grad_survey object, so
      @mock_grad_survey = mock_model(GradSurvey, :student=>mock_model
(Student))

Why is it necessary for me to explicitly add the #student method to
the mock GradSurvey model, it seems to me that it should come for free
as part of the defined association, no? What am I not understanding
here?

thanks in advance for any light you are able to shed

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Fri Jul 31 01:00:41 2009
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Adrian De la cruz)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:00:41 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Ruby 1.9 - autospec loadpath problem
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0902190849m4954d192iac667c318a10038@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57a815bf0811301424k131b4155xafee88459449eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0812010221x58dd37e3w1a7d741df1256b70@mail.gmail.com>
	<22102148.post@talk.nabble.com>
	<57c63afe0902190849m4954d192iac667c318a10038@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <35c4e29e0d69b2ad8289417c003e3506@ruby-forum.com>

Hi guys,

I'm getting this same error in a Ubuntu 9.04 machine.

I have Ruby 1.8.7 installed alongside Ruby 1.9.1.

When I'm on Ruby 1.9.1 and try to run the specs on a non-Rails app I get 
this error:
=======================================
/usr/local/bin/spec:19:in `load': Is a directory - 
/usr/local/lib/ruby19/gems/1.9.1/gems/rspec-rails-1.2.7.1/lib/spec 
(Errno::EISDIR)
        from /usr/local/bin/spec:19:in `<main>'
=======================================

If I switch to Ruby 1.8.7 there is no problem.

Any ideas?
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From lists at ruby-forum.com  Fri Jul 31 01:03:38 2009
From: lists at ruby-forum.com (Adrian De la cruz)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:03:38 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Ruby 1.9 - autospec loadpath problem
In-Reply-To: <35c4e29e0d69b2ad8289417c003e3506@ruby-forum.com>
References: <57a815bf0811301424k131b4155xafee88459449eb@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0812010221x58dd37e3w1a7d741df1256b70@mail.gmail.com>
	<22102148.post@talk.nabble.com>
	<57c63afe0902190849m4954d192iac667c318a10038@mail.gmail.com>
	<35c4e29e0d69b2ad8289417c003e3506@ruby-forum.com>
Message-ID: <8b1fb7bcb087f0690627a0bb37898a1a@ruby-forum.com>

Oh, forgot to mention that if I uninstall the rspec-rails gem from my 
Ruby 1.9.1 gem repository, the problem goes away, and I can run the 
tests in the non-Rails app without problem.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From brian.takita at gmail.com  Fri Jul 31 03:11:29 2009
From: brian.takita at gmail.com (Brian Takita)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:11:29 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Rspec api ideas, inspired by Cucumber
Message-ID: <1d7ddd110907310011u146314c3k3be016b63f37786c@mail.gmail.com>

I think I would like to stick primarily with Rspec, because I like
working close to the code and being able to easily refactor things.
I do like Cucumber's ability to easily define sequences of actions and
custom plain text actions.

Here are some api ideas I have to make those things better in rspec.
http://gist.github.com/159123

WDYT?

- Brian

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul 31 07:36:45 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:36:45 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Rspec api ideas, inspired by Cucumber
In-Reply-To: <1d7ddd110907310011u146314c3k3be016b63f37786c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1d7ddd110907310011u146314c3k3be016b63f37786c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907310436paf00d0ex80bd60e7c07b502f@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Brian Takita<brian.takita at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think I would like to stick primarily with Rspec, because I like
> working close to the code and being able to easily refactor things.
> I do like Cucumber's ability to easily define sequences of actions and
> custom plain text actions.
>
> Here are some api ideas I have to make those things better in rspec.
> http://gist.github.com/159123
>
> WDYT?

Very cool ideas. I'm not sure whether I'd want them in rspec proper,
but I do think that rspec should let you easily plug ideas like this
into its example lifecycle management. That idea has been brewing for
a while as part of rspec-2.0, but rspec-2.0 is back-burnered until
after the book is off to print - I need to stay focused.

What you're proposing looks a lot like rbehave, which was the
precursor to Story Runner, and then Cucumber. Story Runner introduced
plain text scenarios, but still let you work in Ruby (like rbehave) if
you chose to. In rbehave, your example would look like
http://gist.github.com/159174

FIT's DoFixture does the same sort of alternating part of the method
with arguments. So you can write table rows like this:

| can have | any | number of | arguments | between text |

.. which get converted to method calls like this (pardon the camel case):

canHaveNumberOfBetweenText('any','arguments')

This actually dates back to smalltalk, which lets you make method
calls with something akin to keyword arguments like this:

message canHave: 'any'; numberOf: 'arguments'

It's more fluid than rbehave's name/arg structure, in which all of the
args have to be at the end, and I think its a powerful idea. The
lambda in the middle is a bit disconcerting. Maybe that bit would look
nicer in Ruby 1.9 :)

Other thoughts?

Cheers,
David

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

From balint.erdi at gmail.com  Fri Jul 31 04:57:37 2009
From: balint.erdi at gmail.com (Balint Erdi)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] [rspec-rails] rspec-rails forcing test environment?
Message-ID: <f4dc4479-c130-47af-b406-d45c14cb0442@o15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>

Hi,

I realized that requiring rspec-rails somehow sets RAILS_ENV to
'test'. My experimental environment.rb file is the following:

puts "XXX RAILS_ENV: #{RAILS_ENV}"

Rails::Initializer.run do |config|
  (...)
  config.gem "rspec", :version => ">= 1.2.8", :lib => 'spec'
  config.gem "rspec-rails", :version => ">= 1.2.7.1", :lib => 'spec/
rails' # (1)
  (...)
end

puts "XXX RAILS_ENV: #{RAILS_ENV}"

When I run the server (./script/server), I see:

XXX RAILS_ENV: development
XXX RAILS_ENV: test

If I comment out the rspec-rails inclusion line (1), then the
RAILS_ENV remains 'development' after the config block. That's causing
me a problem because "in the real app" I set up a CouchDB database
depending on RAILS_ENV after the block.

One possible workaround is to put the rspec and rspec-rails lines into
the environment file for the test env. (test.rb), but that seems to
defeat the goal of having all dependencies in one place so that it is
clear and gem-related rake tasks can be conveniently run. (I am using
rails 2.3.2, rspec 1.2.8, rspec-rails 1.2.7.1)

Do you know of a better workaround or a real solution for the problem?

Thank you,
Balint

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jul 31 08:36:39 2009
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:36:39 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] [rspec-rails] rspec-rails forcing test
	environment?
In-Reply-To: <f4dc4479-c130-47af-b406-d45c14cb0442@o15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
References: <f4dc4479-c130-47af-b406-d45c14cb0442@o15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0907310536o174ca777pb9732fb4e19ead7c@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Balint Erdi<balint.erdi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I realized that requiring rspec-rails somehow sets RAILS_ENV to
> 'test'. My experimental environment.rb file is the following:
>
> puts "XXX RAILS_ENV: #{RAILS_ENV}"
>
> Rails::Initializer.run do |config|
> ?(...)
> ?config.gem "rspec", :version => ">= 1.2.8", :lib => 'spec'
> ?config.gem "rspec-rails", :version => ">= 1.2.7.1", :lib => 'spec/

Use lib => false to keep rails from automatically loading rspec and/or
rspec-rails

This should also be in config/environments/test.rb

HTH,
David

> rails' # (1)
> ?(...)
> end
>
> puts "XXX RAILS_ENV: #{RAILS_ENV}"
>
> When I run the server (./script/server), I see:
>
> XXX RAILS_ENV: development
> XXX RAILS_ENV: test
>
> If I comment out the rspec-rails inclusion line (1), then the
> RAILS_ENV remains 'development' after the config block. That's causing
> me a problem because "in the real app" I set up a CouchDB database
> depending on RAILS_ENV after the block.
>
> One possible workaround is to put the rspec and rspec-rails lines into
> the environment file for the test env. (test.rb), but that seems to
> defeat the goal of having all dependencies in one place so that it is
> clear and gem-related rake tasks can be conveniently run. (I am using
> rails 2.3.2, rspec 1.2.8, rspec-rails 1.2.7.1)
>
> Do you know of a better workaround or a real solution for the problem?
>
> Thank you,
> Balint
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>