I've got the following model
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
before_create :set_some_values
private
def set_some_values
#do something
end
end
In specs I'm using Fabrication gem to create objects but I can't find a way to stub the set_some_values method. I tried
User.any_instance.stub!(:set_some_values).and_return(nil)
but Fabrication seems to ignore this. Is it possible to do?
This is why I don't like ActiveRecord callbacks -- because if you want to have nothing to do with a callback (because, say, you're making a call to an external service inside the callback) you still have to be concerned about stubbing it out. Yes you could stub out methods inside the callback, but it's the same problem, and actually it's a bit worse because now you are concerned about something inside a method you want nothing to do with.
As usual there are multiple options here.
One option which I've used a lot in the past is, add a condition to your callback that turns it off by default. So your Post class could look like:
class Post
before_save :sync_with_store, :if => :syncing_with_store?
def syncing_with_store?; #syncing_with_store; end
attr_writer :syncing_with_store
def sync_with_store
# make an HTTP request or something
end
end
Now wherever you really want to call the callback (perhaps in your controller or wherever), you can set post.syncing_with_store = true before you call post.save.
The downside to this approach is, it's something that you (and other devs working with you) have to keep in mind, and it's not really obvious that you have to do this. On the other hand, if you forget to do this, nothing bad happens.
Another option is to use a fake class. Say you have a Post that pushes its data to an external data store on save. You could extract the code that does the pushing to a separate class (e.g. Pusher) which would be accessible at Post.pusher_service. By default, though, this would be set to a fake Pusher class that responds to the same interface but does nothing. So like:
class Post
class << self
attr_accessor :pusher_service
end
self.pusher_service = FakePostPusher
before_save :sync_with_store
def sync_with_store
self.class.pusher_service.run(self)
end
end
class FakePostPusher
def self.run(post)
new(post).run
end
def initialize(post)
#post = post
end
def run
# do nothing
end
end
class PostPusher < FakePostPusher
def run
# actually make the HTTP request or whatever
end
end
In your production environment file, you'd set Post.pusher_service = Pusher. In individual tests or test cases, you'd make a subclass of Post -- let(:klass) { Class.new(Post) } -- and set klass.pusher_service = Pusher (that way you don't permanently set it and affect future tests).
The third approach, which I have been experimenting with, is this: simply don't use ActiveRecord callbacks. This is something I picked up from Gary Bernhardt's screencasts (which, by the way, are pretty amazing). Instead, define a service class that wraps the act of creating a post. Something like:
class PostCreator
def self.run(attrs={})
new(attrs).run
end
def initialize(attrs={})
#post = Post.new(attrs)
end
def run
if #post.save
make_http_request
return true
else
return false
end
end
def make_http_request
# ...
end
end
This way PostCreator.run(attrs) is the de facto way of creating a post instead of going through Post. Now to test saves within Post, there's no need to stub out callbacks. If you want to test the PostCreator process, there's no magic going on, you can easily stub out whichever methods you want or test them independently. (You could argue that stubbing out methods here is the same as stubbing out AR callbacks, but I think it's more explicit what's going on.) Obviously this only handles post creation, but you could do the same for post updating too.
Anyway, different ideas, pick your poison.
The #set_some_values method here is called when you call #save on the record. So it has nothing to do with the constructor and therefore you don't need to stub User.any_instance -- just make your record and then do a partial stub, as in:
record.stub(:set_some_values)
record.save
Related
I am trying to use a different warden strategy to authenticate my action cable end points.
But the strategy is not getting called. I tried to place warden.authenticate!(:action_cable_auth) in a controller to test but none of the debug statements are getting printed on console.
Below are the relevant part of the code.
config/initializers/warden.rb
Warden::Strategies.add(:action_cable_auth) do
def valid?
#check if its a websocket request & for action cable?
#Rails.logger.error request.inspect
p 'checking if strategy is valid?'
true
end
def authenticate!
p 'unauthenticate the user'
fail!('user not active')
end
end
in my controller
warden.authenticate!(:action_cable_auth)
Assuming that you are setting your initializer in the proper place, please recall that if your session is already instantiated somewhere else (for example if you authenticate the user at the point your action is being called, then your strategy will never be called.
This is basically how warden works: if some valid? strategy returns a success! then no other will be called as soon as any authenticate! method in the list of strategies is successful.
Please also be sure that if you want your strategy up the list of strategies to check you may need to also shift it up on the list, such as:
manager.default_strategies(scope: :user).unshift(:action_cable_auth)
Where the manager is your Warden::Manager instance. The scope may also be optional (this is an example where the user scope is used alongside Devise), but you may check your instance .default_strategies to figure out where it is and where you want it.
I want to ensure that my EventNotifier object catches and logs an exception to the Rails logger, so I writed the following rspec test using rspec-mocks:
describe EventNotifier do
before(:all) do
RSpec::Mocks::setup(self)
end
it 'logs exception on error' do
error = RuntimeError.new('simulated for tests')
EventDispatcher.should_receive(:dispatch).with('a message').and_raise(error)
Rails.logger.should_receive(:warning).with(error)
subject.notify('a message')
end
end
class EventDispatcher
def dispatch(message)
# stuff
end
end
class EventNotifier
def notify(message)
EventDispatcher.dispatch(message)
rescue RuntimeError => e
Rails.logger.warning(e)
end
end
The test passes with bells and whistles, but I did a big mistake. Can you spot it? Indeed, the Rails method to log a warning is warn, not warning. So this code will fail when used for real.
Is there a way to make rspec-mock forbid mocking methods that do not exist on the original object?
Another example where it can be useful: if I decide to rename EventDispatcher#dispatch as EventDispatcher#route, then the test still passes. If it was java, it would have failed at compilation because the interface has changed. With rspec-mock, I do not know how to make it fail automatically.
It will be possible with rspec-mocks 3.0 which introduces verifying doubles:
Verifying doubles are a stricter alternative to normal doubles that provide
guarantees about what is being verified. When using verifying doubles, RSpec
will check that the methods being stubbed are actually present on the
underlying object if it is available. Prefer using verifying doubles over
normal doubles.
So given these classes (examples taken from the spec):
class ConsoleNotifier
def notify(msg)
puts message
end
end
class User < Struct.new(:notifier)
def suspend!
notifier.notify("suspended as")
end
end
This example would pass because the method notify exists for a real ConsoleNotifier instance:
describe User, '#suspend!' do
it 'notifies the console' do
notifier = instance_double("ConsoleNotifier")
expect(notifier).to receive(:notify).with("suspended as")
user = User.new(notifier)
user.suspend!
end
end
If the notify method is renamed as publish, the example would fail because expectations are on the method notify and that method does not exist on target object.
# would make example fail
class ConsoleNotifier
def publish(msg)
puts message
end
end
If we add a color argument to the notify method, it will fail too because the method arity is incorrect in the expectation (wrong number of arguments).
class ConsoleNotifier
def notify(msg, color)
puts color + message
end
end
When putting expectations on class, like EventDispatcher.should_receive(:dispatch) or expect(EventDispatcher).to receive(:dispatch), the created double is named a partial double in rspec-mocks vocabulary.
To make partial doubles act like verifying doubles, the verify_partial_doubles configuration option must be set:
RSpec.configure do |config|
config.mock_with :rspec do |mocks|
mocks.verify_partial_doubles = true
end
end
And it will automagically ensure that the EventDispatcher class has a dispatch method. So if this method is renamed, the test will fail, as expected!
Many simmilar Q/A on this topic here and there, but I was unable to find exact solution for my problem. Using Rails 3.0.9 now, and trying to upgrade existing older application(not Rails).
The goal is to send simple email to new clients created by admins.
Have been following this oficial guide (and many others), but with no success.
The issue is, that method(s) defined in this controller, from class 'UserMailer', aren`t recognised from another controller, while class 'UserMailer' itself recognised is(how do I know this, will be explained below):
/app/mailers/user_mailer.rb
class UserMailer < ActionMailer::Base
default :from => "info#xxxxx.sk"
def kokotina # << this is just a dummy method for testing
caf = "ssss"
end
def regMailUsr(nazov, priezvisko, email, pass)
#nazov = nazov
#priezvisko = priezvisko
#email = email
#pass = pass
#url = "http://loyalty2.xxxx.sk"
mail(to: email, subject: 'Vaša registrácia bola dokončená.')
end
end
I have also created View for this mail controller but that is not important right now.
The fragments from clients controller are here:
/app/controllers/clients_controller.rb
# encoding: UTF-8
class ClientsController < ApplicationController
load_and_authorize_resource
.......
def new
#noveHeslo = genHeslo(10) # << I defined this in application_controller.rb and it works
UserMailer.kokotina # << just a dummy method from UserMailer
#client = Client.new(params[:client])
.......
end
.......
def create
.......
if #client.save
#send email to new client:
UserMailer.regMailUsr(params[:client][:fname], params[:client][:lname], params[:client][:email], params[:client][:password]).deliver
.....
end ......
Now how do I know that my class is loaded? If in client controller, I change 'UserMailer' to 'xUserMailer', I will get 'no class or method in ...' error, but without 'x', I get only:
'undefined method `kokotina' for UserMailer:Class'
I also tried to define my methods in UserMailer:Class like this:
def self.kokotina # << this is just a dummy method for testing
caf = "ssss"
end
#or even like this
def self <<
def kokotina # << this is just a dummy method for testing
caf = "ssss"
end
end
#and then tried to invoke this method(s) like this:
UserMailer.new.kokotina
#or simply
kokotina
Strange is, that when I put contents of file '/app/mailers/user_mailer.rb' at the end of 'application_helper.rb' file, just after the end of 'module ApplicationHelper', I get no errors but of course, it won`t work.
Please keep in mind that I have no problem coding in another languages, but this mystic/kryptic rules of Ruby on Rails are still a complete mistery to me and unfortunatelly, I don`t have time or even motivation to read time extensive quides or even books for RoR beginners. I have been coding much more difficult applications and implementations, but this heavily discriminating system is driving me nuts.
Thank you all!
Problem solved!
The trick was, that in '/app/mailers/user_mailer.rb', I had multibyte characters. In mail subject.
So I added:
# encoding: UTF-8
at the very first line of '/app/mailers/user_mailer.rb'
I found this by total accident: later my rails app could not start, and server was simply throwing HTTP 500 error. So no trace, error defining etc.
I found out that multibyte string in:
mail(to: email, subject: 'Vaša registrácia bola dokončená.')
Was responsible for crash. When I removed that string, I noticed one important side effect: my methods became magicaly available for another controller!!!!
So if someone could give me at least one reason to lowe Rails...
I am implementing background email processing with Resque using the resque_mailer gem (https://github.com/zapnap/resque_mailer). I was able to get it to work for all my emails except the ones sent by Devise.
I went through a bunch of SO questions, and blog posts (for instance http://teeparham.posterous.com/send-devise-emails-with-resque) but could not find a way to get it to work.
What are the precise steps to follow to get resque_mailer to work with Devise?
I went through tee's answer and several resources online, but couldn't find a working solution.
After a few days of reading through resque-mailer and devise code, a solution that worked for me. Thanks to tee for gist which put me in right direction.
Assuming your app/mailers/application_mailer.rb looks similar to
class ApplicationMailer < ActionMailer::Base
include Resque::Mailer # This will add a `self.perform` class method, which we will overwrite in DeviseResqueMailer
end
In config/initializers/devise.rb
Devise.parent_mailer = "ApplicationMailer"
Devise.setup do |config|
config.mailer = 'DeviseResqueMailer'
end
In the resource class which uses devise, overwrite the send_devise_notification method to send resource class and id instead of object to prevent marshalling
# app/models/user.rb
protected
def send_devise_notification(notification, *args)
# Based on https://github.com/zapnap/resque_mailer/blob/64d2be9687e320de4295c1bd1b645f42bd547743/lib/resque_mailer.rb#L81
# Mailer may completely skip Resque::Mailer in certain cases - and will fail as we write custom handle in DeviseResqueMailer assuming mails are handled via resque
# So in those cases, don't retain original devise_mailer so things work properly
if ActionMailer::Base.perform_deliveries && Resque::Mailer.excluded_environments.exclude?(Rails.env.to_sym)
# Originally devise_mailer.send(notification, self, *args).deliver
# Modified to ensure devise mails are safely sent via resque
resource_id, resource_class = self.id, self.class.name
devise_mailer.send(notification, {resource_id: resource_id, resource_class: resource_class}, *args).deliver
else
super
end
end
Finally, in app/mailers/devise_resque_mailer.rb, fetch the record again from the database and continue
class DeviseResqueMailer < Devise::Mailer
def self.perform(action, *args)
# Hack to prevent RuntimeError - Could not find a valid mapping for admin.attributes
record_hash = args.shift
record = record_hash["resource_class"].constantize.find(record_hash["resource_id"])
args.unshift(record)
super # From resque-mailer
end
end
I feel this approach is a better than using devise-async as all the mails go through same code path. Its easier to control and overwrite if needed.
I'd take a look at devise-async. Looks like it fits your use case. Devise Async
I am using the Koala gem to make facebook requests and i have the following code:
#graph = Koala::Facebook::API.new(oauth_token)
#graph.batch do |batch_api|
#... do stuff here
end
I want to mock out the batch call to simulate the stuff we are doing in there.
Here is what i have in RR.
oauth_token= "Sometoken"
batch_api_mock = nil
graph_mock = mock(Koala::Facebook::API).new(oauth_token).mock!
graph_mock.batch.returns do
yield batch_api_mock if block_given?
end
The problem is that block_given? is return false even though there is a block being passed in my source.
How do i mock a method that takes a block using RR?
K so after looking through the open tickets i found that the answer was that the first argument to the block is a RR::ProcFromBlock which is exactly the block that would be passed to the function. Here is the modification to the code to make it work.
oauth_token= "Sometoken"
batch_api_mock = nil
graph_mock = mock(Koala::Facebook::API).new(oauth_token).mock!
#The block is passed in as a proc as the first argument to the returns block.
graph_mock.batch.returns do |proc_as_block|
proc_as_block.call
end
Hope that helps someone save some time. They need to add this little gem to the documentation