describe GameSystem::Client do
def client
GameSystem::Client.new(signature_method: 'HMAC-SHA1', oauth_key: 'kk', oauth_secret: 'bb', oauth_access_token_url: 'https:://localhost')
end
before :each do
WebMock.reset!
end
describe 'response' do
context 'wrong path' do
it 'raises JSON::ParserError on invalid return value' do
stub_request(:get,"https://games.com/game_id/invalid_id").to_return(:status => 200, :body => 'invalid json', :headers => {})
Rails.logger.info "#{client.games_by_id("invalid_id")}"
end
end
end
end
Can anyone let me know what i have been doing wrong or what i could do different ?.
It basically throws this error at the line
#access_token = #consumer.get_access_token(nil) in my client
It'd be good if you could be a bit more specific on what you're trying to do.
The error is pretty self explanatory. You're getting downcase for nil:NilClass because you're trying to call downcase for a nil object...Provide more information and we'll be able to help better.
I realize this question was from way back, but I just ran into this issue in a test suite. Sounded familiar.
My error was
Failure/Error: get :index
ActionView::Template::Error:
undefined method `downcase' for nil:NilClass
As it turns out, i'm using mobile-fu and I was stubbing is_mobile_device? without stubbing also mobile_device. Somewhere along the way, mobile-fu was trying to downcase the device name, which was nil. By adding a stub for the mobile_device, things cleared up. In a before block in the specs, I added:
controller.stub(:is_mobile_device? => true, :mobile_device => 'iphone')
If you're not using mobile-fu, you probably have a different issue. I was able to track the actual issue down with pry and pry-debugger. Definitely worthwhile tools to look into.
The rails 3 appis is using the create! method inside the create of a controller.
Sometimes it works, and sometimes it does not.It fails consistently with always the same use case, however i have checked and rechecked and cannot understand why it fails.
The create! method fails silently, there is no indication on the logs of the problem. How can I make the create! methode more verbose?
Code :
class NotificationPaiementsController < ApplicationController
protect_from_forgery :except =>[:create]
skip_before_filter :authorize, :only => [:create]
def create
logger.debug "params is #{params}"
logger.debug "invoice is #{params[:invoice]}"
logger.debug "payment_status is #{params[:payment_status]}"
logger.debug "txn_id is #{params[:txn_id]}"
#notification_paiement = NotificationPaiement.create!(:params => params,
:cart_id => params[:invoice],
:status=> params[:payment_status],
:transaction_id => params[:txn_id])
logger.debug "notification_paiement is #{#notification_paiement}"
render :nothing=>true
end
end
EDIT:
Thx for your answers, it would have been faster to catch exception, but i managed to identify the problem using new and savevia the console. At the save i had an error about UTF-8 encoding : ArgumentError: invalid byte sequence in UTF-8.
Paypal was changing "molière" in "moli\xE8re" and the error was never displayed.
The create! constructor raises an exception if it fails:
Creates an object just like Base.create but calls save! instead of save so an exception is raised if the record is invalid.
So, if you're going to use create!, you should wrap it in exception handling:
begin
#notification_paiement = NotificationPaiement.create!(...
rescue ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid => e
# Deal with your errors.
end
You can temporarily remove the backtrace silencers in config/initializers/backtrace_silencers.rb in case exception info is being swallowed.
I have a pretty standard authenticate method
private
def authenticate_user
#current_user = User.find_by_authentication_token(params[:token])
unless #current_user
error = { :error => "Invalid token." }
respond_with(error, :status => 401 )
end
end
I am calling the API to ensure the authenticate fails.
I get an error stating
ArgumentError (Nil location provided. Can't build URI.):
app/controllers/api/v1/base_controller.rb:13:in `authenticate_user'
What am I doing wrong?
By the specific flavor of your error, I am guessing that "authenticate_user" is called as part of a "create" action.
If that is the case, I believe the answer I provided here will help you as well.
Assuming, however, that this is part of creating an authenticated session, meaning there is no actual location for the newly created "resource", I would supply nil for the response location, as in:
...
respond_with(error, :status => 401, :location => nil)
...
That will make more sense once you have a look at the linked answer. If it still doesn't make sense, I'll be happy to clarify.
I changed respond_with to render and it worked:
render json: { success: false, message: "an error" }, status: 500
I have code in my model (RoR 3.0.x) that is more or less like this:
class Message
after_create :notify
protected
def notify
if visible?
Notifier.message_from_portfolio( user, self ).deliver
else
Notifier.invisible_message_from_portfolio( user, self ).deliver
end
end
end
And I'm using the latest rspec gem to test it.
The problem is that I'm not able to test the notify method: if I test it directly I can't because it's protected, if I create a message and set expectations it doesn't work because apparently even though rspec runs the notify metod I'm not able to catch the calls in time.
My spec is:
describe :notification do
it "should send the whole message by email when visible" do
u = Factory.create( :user, :account_type => 1 )
message = u.messages.build( :body => "Whatever", :author => "Nobody", :email => "test#example.com" )
Notifier.should_receive( :message_from_portfolio )
message.save
end
end
The object Notifier never receives message_from_portfolio. What am I doing wrong? Suggestions?
Factory.create has already saved message, so it is not being created, just saved. Substitute it with Factory.build and all should be fine.
Are you sure the callback is being reached? after_create doesn't get executed if the instance is invalid.
You could set an expectation for debugging purposes:
message.should_receive(:after_create)
Or maybe visible? returns false? To check for that you could use a negative expectation:
Notifier.should_not_receive(:invisible_message_from_portfolio)
I have written a Rails 3.1 engine with the namespace Posts. Hence, my controllers are found in app/controllers/posts/, my models in app/models/posts, etc. I can test the models just fine. The spec for one model looks like...
module Posts
describe Post do
describe 'Associations' do
it ...
end
... and everything works fine.
However, the specs for the controllers do not work. The Rails engine is mounted at /posts, yet the controller is Posts::PostController. Thus, the tests look for the controller route to be posts/posts.
describe "GET index" do
it "assigns all posts as #posts" do
Posts::Post.stub(:all) { [mock_post] }
get :index
assigns(:posts).should eq([mock_post])
end
end
which yields...
1) Posts::PostsController GET index assigns all posts as #posts
Failure/Error: get :index
ActionController::RoutingError:
No route matches {:controller=>"posts/posts"}
# ./spec/controllers/posts/posts_controller_spec.rb:16
I've tried all sorts of tricks in the test app's routes file... :namespace, etc, to no avail.
How do I make this work? It seems like it won't, since the engine puts the controller at /posts, yet the namespacing puts the controller at /posts/posts for the purpose of testing.
I'm assuming you're testing your engine with a dummy rails app, like the one that would be generated by enginex.
Your engine should be mounted in the dummy app:
In spec/dummy/config/routes.rb:
Dummy::Application.routes.draw do
mount Posts::Engine => '/posts-prefix'
end
My second assumption is that your engine is isolated:
In lib/posts.rb:
module Posts
class Engine < Rails::Engine
isolate_namespace Posts
end
end
I don't know if these two assumptions are really required, but that is how my own engine is structured.
The workaround is quite simple, instead of this
get :show, :id => 1
use this
get :show, {:id => 1, :use_route => :posts}
The :posts symbol should be the name of your engine and NOT the path where it is mounted.
This works because the get method parameters are passed straight to ActionDispatch::Routing::RouteSet::Generator#initialize (defined here), which in turn uses #named_route to get the correct route from Rack::Mount::RouteSet#generate (see here and here).
Plunging into the rails internals is fun, but quite time consuming, I would not do this every day ;-) .
HTH
I worked around this issue by overriding the get, post, put, and delete methods that are provided, making it so they always pass use_route as a parameter.
I used Benoit's answer as a basis for this. Thanks buddy!
module ControllerHacks
def get(action, parameters = nil, session = nil, flash = nil)
process_action(action, parameters, session, flash, "GET")
end
# Executes a request simulating POST HTTP method and set/volley the response
def post(action, parameters = nil, session = nil, flash = nil)
process_action(action, parameters, session, flash, "POST")
end
# Executes a request simulating PUT HTTP method and set/volley the response
def put(action, parameters = nil, session = nil, flash = nil)
process_action(action, parameters, session, flash, "PUT")
end
# Executes a request simulating DELETE HTTP method and set/volley the response
def delete(action, parameters = nil, session = nil, flash = nil)
process_action(action, parameters, session, flash, "DELETE")
end
private
def process_action(action, parameters = nil, session = nil, flash = nil, method = "GET")
parameters ||= {}
process(action, parameters.merge!(:use_route => :my_engine), session, flash, method)
end
end
RSpec.configure do |c|
c.include ControllerHacks, :type => :controller
end
Use the rspec-rails routes directive:
describe MyEngine::WidgetsController do
routes { MyEngine::Engine.routes }
# Specs can use the engine's routes & named URL helpers
# without any other special code.
end
– RSpec Rails 2.14 official docs.
Based on this answer I chose the following solution:
#spec/spec_helper.rb
RSpec.configure do |config|
# other code
config.before(:each) { #routes = UserManager::Engine.routes }
end
The additional benefit is, that you don't need to have the before(:each) block in every controller-spec.
Solution for a problem when you don't have or cannot use isolate_namespace:
module Posts
class Engine < Rails::Engine
end
end
In controller specs, to fix routes:
get :show, {:id => 1, :use_route => :posts_engine}
Rails adds _engine to your app routes if you don't use isolate_namespace.
I'm developing a gem for my company that provides an API for the applications we're running. We're using Rails 3.0.9 still, with latest Rspec-Rails (2.10.1). I was having a similar issue where I had defined routes like so in my Rails engine gem.
match '/companyname/api_name' => 'CompanyName/ApiName/ControllerName#apimethod'
I was getting an error like
ActionController::RoutingError:
No route matches {:controller=>"company_name/api_name/controller_name", :action=>"apimethod"}
It turns out I just needed to redefine my route in underscore case so that RSpec could match it.
match '/companyname/api_name' => 'company_name/api_name/controller_name#apimethod'
I guess Rspec controller tests use a reverse lookup based on underscore case, whereas Rails will setup and interpret the route if you define it in camelcase or underscore case.
It was already mentioned about adding routes { MyEngine::Engine.routes }, although it's possible to specify this for all controller tests:
# spec/support/test_helpers/controller_routes.rb
module TestHelpers
module ControllerRoutes
extend ActiveSupport::Concern
included do
routes { MyEngine::Engine.routes }
end
end
end
and use in rails_helper.rb:
RSpec.configure do |config|
config.include TestHelpers::ControllerRoutes, type: :controller
end