I have the following validation in my ActiveRecord.
validates :active, :inclusion => {:in => ['Y', 'N']}
I am using the following to test my model validations.
should_not allow_value('A').for(:active)
should allow_value('Y').for(:active)
should allow_value('N').for(:active)
Is there a cleaner and more through way of testing this? I am currently using RSpec2 and shoulda matchers.
EDIT
After some looking around I only found, this probably an 'ok' way of testing this, shoulda does not provide anything for this and anyone who requires it can write their own custom matcher for it.(And probably contribute it back to the project). Some links to discussions that might be intresting:
Links which indicate to the above . Link 1 , Link 2
should_ensure_value_in_range This one comes close to what can be used, but only accepts ranges and not a list of values. Custom matcher can be based on this.
Use shoulda_matchers
In recent versions of shoulda-matchers (at least as of v2.7.0), you can do:
expect(subject).to validate_inclusion_of(:active).in_array(%w[Y N])
This tests that the array of acceptable values in the validation exactly matches this spec.
In earlier versions, >= v1.4 , shoulda_matchers supports this syntax:
it {should ensure_inclusion_of(:active).in_array(%w[Y N]) }
If you have more elements to test than a boolean Y/N then you could also try.
it "should allow valid values" do
%w(item1 item2 item3 item4).each do |v|
should allow_value(v).for(:field)
end
end
it { should_not allow_value("other").for(:role) }
You can also replace the %w() with a constant you have defined in your model so that it tests that only the constant values are allowed.
CONSTANT = %w[item1 item2 item3 item4]
validates :field, :inclusion => CONSTANT
Then the test:
it "should allow valid values" do
Model::CONSTANT.each do |v|
should allow_value(v).for(:field)
end
end
I found one custom shoulda matcher (in one of the projects I was working on) which attempts to coming close to test something like this:
Examples:
it { should validate_inclusion_check_constraint_on :status, :allowed_values => %w(Open Resolved Closed) }
it { should validate_inclusion_check_constraint_on :age, :allowed_values => 0..100 }
The matcher tries to ensure that there is a DB constraint which blows up when it tries to save it.I will attempt to give the essence of the idea. The matches? implementation does something like:
begin
#allowed_values.each do |value|
#subject.send("#{#attribute}=", value)
#subject.save(:validate => false)
end
rescue ::ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid => e
# Returns false if the exception message contains a string matching the error throw by SQL db
end
I guess if we slightly change the above to say #subject.save and let Rails validation blow up, we can return false when the exception string contains something which close matches the real exception error message.
I know this is far from perfect to contributed back to the project, but I guess might not be a bad idea to add into your project as a custom matcher if you really want to test a lot of the :inclusion validation.
Related
We have a Style model with dynamic attributes, which can be saved by filling one field with the attribute key and the next field with the value.
A typical params hash looks like this:
{"utf8"=>"✓", "style"=>{"collection_id"=>"48", "program_id"=>"989", "number"=>"454632", "name"=>"t67f", "category_id"=>"19", "field_KEY"=>"VALUE"}, "commit"=>"save", "id"=>"4521"}
This works as intended when clicking it through, and the "field_KEY" => "VALUE" pair creates a new dynamic attribute with a getter(field_KEY) and setter(field_KEY=) method.
The Problem is: If the process is simulated with cucumber, something calls the getters for all keys in the hash before the attributes are set, including field_KEY.
Normal attributes will return nil for a new record, but since the getter for field_KEY has not yet been created, this results in an
`UndefinedMethodError: undefined method 'field_KEY'`.
Now my question: would you rather track down the caller of the field_KEY getter and mess around with cucumber, or should I try to simulate a fake method, something like:
def check_method(method_name)
if method_name =~ /^field_/
nil
else
... # let the Error be raised
end
Better ideas or solutions are more than welcome
Thanks
The Problem was:
The call to field_KEY came from pickle, because I included the step
And the style's "field_KEY" should be "VALUE"
which looks like this:
Then(/^#{capture_model}'s (\w+) (should(?: not)?) be #{capture_value}$/) do |name, attribute, expectation, expected|
actual_value = model(name).send(attribute)
expectation = expectation.gsub(' ', '_')
case expected
when 'nil', 'true', 'false'
actual_value.send(expectation, send("be_#{expected}"))
when /^[+-]?[0-9_]+(\.\d+)?$/
actual_value.send(expectation, eql(expected.to_f))
else
actual_value.to_s.send(expectation, eql(eval(expected)))
end
end
I still don't know why the dynamic_attribute getter had not been created up to this point.
What I ended up doing:
In my opinion (also, it solved the problem ;)), cucumber tests should be black-box tests, thats why I chose to change the steps and now I use
And the "key1" field should contain "KEY"
which checks if the field has been filled with the correct value after the page reloads.
I currently have the following tests, which look like good candidates for a little DRY treatment:
describe League do
context 'attributes validation' do
before(:each) do
#league = League.new
end
it 'should be invalid without a short_name' do
#league.attributes = valid_league_attributes.except(:short_name)
#league.should_not be_valid
#league.should have(1).error_on(:short_name)
#league.errors[:short_name].should == ["can't be blank"]
#league.short_name = 'NFL'
#league.should be_valid
end
it 'should be invalid without a long_name' do
#league.attributes = valid_league_attributes.except(:long_name)
#league.should_not be_valid
#league.should have(2).error_on(:long_name)
#league.errors[:long_name].should == ["can't be blank", 'is not included in the list']
#league.long_name = 'National Football League'
#league.should be_valid
end
end
end
Is it possible to make this more DRY using Custom Matchers or some other utility?
It is possible, but I wouldn't recommend it. These two tests are sufficiently different that writing a method to wrap them into introduces more complexity than seems justified, and will make troubleshooting harder if one of the two tests should ever fail.
You might want to have a look at shoulda
This would allow you to write
describe League do
subject {League.new}
it {should validate_presence_of(:long_name)}
it {should validate_presence_of(:short_name)}
end
There's a bunch of other matchers for validations and associations too.
this is my test (with shoulda helpers):
context "searching from header" do
setup do
Factory(:city, :name => 'Testing It')
ThinkingSphinx::Test.index 'city_core', 'city_delta'
ThinkingSphinx::Test.start
get :index,
:query => 'Testing It'
end
should respond_with(:success)
should assign_to(:results)
should "have one city on the result" do
assert_equal( assigns(:results).count, 1 )
assert_kind_of( assigns(:results).first, City )
end
ThinkingSphinx::Test.stop
end
Everything works fine except the test always say the count of the results is 0, not 1.
I have debugged this code and when the request reaches the controller, the Sphinx indexes are completely empty, even with the explicit call of index for it.
Am I doing something wrong here?
Any help appreciated.
I found out the problem... even tho the insertion in the database is right before the ThinkingSphinx.index, with transactional fixtures, after the setup block the records get deleted.
The solution was adding to the test the following line:
self.use_transactional_fixtures = false
Hope this helps anyone with the same problem.
I'm running RSpec tests against a website product that exists in several different markets. Each market has subtly different combinations of features, etc. I would like to be able to write tests such that they skip themselves at runtime depending on which market/environment they are being run against. The tests should not fail when run in a different market, nor should they pass -- they're simply not applicable.
Unfortunately, there does not seem to be an easy way to mark a test as skipped. How would I go about doing this without trying to inject "pending" blocks (which aren't accurate anyway?)
Use exclusion filters.
describe "market a", :market => 'a' do
...
end
describe "market b", :market => 'b' do
...
end
describe "market c", :market => 'c' do
...
end
RSpec.configure do |c|
# Set these up programmatically;
# I'm not sure how you're defining which market is 'active'
c.filter_run_excluding :market => 'a'
c.filter_run_excluding :market => 'b'
# Now only tests with ":market => 'c'" will run.
end
Or better still, use implicit filters.
describe "market a", :if => CurrentMarket.a? do # or whatever
...
end
I spotted this question looking for a way to really skip examples that I know are going to fail now, but I want to "unskip" them once the situation's changed. So for rspec 3.8 I found one could use skip inside an example just like this:
it 'is going to fail under several circumstances' do
skip("Here's the reason") if conditions_met?
expect(something)
end
Actually, in most situations (maybe not as complicated as in this question) I would rather use pending instead of skip, 'cause it will notify me if tests stop failing, so I can "unskip" them. As we all know that skipped tests will never be performed ever again =)
I'm using RoR and I want to do concurrency safe update queries. For example when I have
var user = User.find(user_id)
user.visits += 1
I get the following SQL code:
SELECT * FROM Users WHERE ID=1 -- find user's visits (1)
UPDATE Users SET Visits=2 WHERE ID=1 -- 1+1=2
But if there are several queries taking place at the same time, there will be locking problems.
According to RoR API I can use :lock => true attribute, but that's not what I want.
I found an awesome function update_counters:
User.update_counters(my_user.id, :visits => 1)
This gives the following SQL code
UPDATE Users SET Visits=Visits+1 WHERE ID=#something
Works great!
Now my question is how can I override the += function to do the update_counters thing instead?
Because
user.visits += 1 # better
User.update_counters(my_user.id, :visits => 1) # than this
UPDATE
I just created the following function
class ActiveRecord::Base
def inc(column, value)
User.update_counters(self.id, column => value)
end
end
Are there any other better ideas?
Don't know about better ideas, but I would define that method to the User class, not the ActiveRecord. And maybe increment_counter (that uses update_counters) would make it a bit more readable?
def inc(column, value)
self.increment_counter(column, value)
end
Haven't tested that and not saying this is definitely better idea, but that's probably how I'd do it.
Update:
And AFAIK you can't override the "+=", because "a += b" just a shortcut for "a = a + b" and you probably don't want to override "=" to use the update_counters :)