We have a bar with filters in almost all of our table-based views in a rails app and we need to test the controller action.
An example of the code:
def index
#users = User.
with_status(params[:status]).
with_role(params[:role_id]).
search(params[:q])
end
The above methods are ActiveRecord scopes which are setup to be bypassed if the passed value if blank.
What I need to do now is spec it sanely and test all the esge cases:
no params passed
only role, only status, only search
role + status, role + search, ... (pairs of 2)
role + status + search
The basic spec example I have written is as follows:
context "when filtering by status" do
before do
1.times { Factory(:user, :status => "one") }
3.times { Factory(:user, :status => "other") }
end
it "returns only users with the provided :status" do
get :index, :status => "one"
assigns(:users).size.should == 1
assigns(:users)[0].status.should == "one"
end
end
I want to write a matrix that will mix and match the role, status and search params and generate the appropriate spec examples.
Is the Array#permutation the solution or is there a better way to do it?
I would test the scopes in the model, so make sure that they can handle the blank value correctly, and also handle the set value correctly.
Then inside the controller, I would test the expectation that the chain is called (use stub_chain). The fact that the chain will return the correct result is handled by the fact that each scope individually has the correct behaviour (you tested that), and the combined behaviour is ensured by rails/activerecord. You should test the passed parameters are handled correctly.
The code you built to test the matrix is very impressive. But for me I try to make sure that my tests are readable, I consider them a kind of documentation of what a piece code is expected to do. To me your code is not comprehensible at first sight.
Hope this helps.
Related
I am successfully using the ":scopes =>" option of this gem to return a subset of the rows of the table. Now I want to create a nearly identical autocomplete, on the same ClassName and Method, with a different scope, for a different view.
The problem is, the first two arguments of autocomplete in the controller are ClassName and Method, and those also create the functional name of the autocomplete function, as it is used in the view and route. Therefore, both of my autocompletes would have the same name.
Is there a workaround I can use to assign a different name to each of the similar autocompletes?
Example code:
autocomplete :my_class_name, :my_method, :display_value => :my_formatting_method,
:extra_data => [:id], :scopes => [:active_and_special]
def active_and_special
where("active = ?", true).
where("special = ?", true).
order("name ASC")
end
Then the again for the 2nd one, with the same class-name and method, but a different scope.
Best workaround I've found is to use "column_name" to override the part of the naming which ordinarily refers to the method - like this:
autocomplete :my_class_name, :foo, :column_name => 'my_method',
:display_value => :my_formatting_method, :extra_data => [:id],
:scopes => [:active_and_not_special]
def active_and_not_special
where("active = ?", true).
where("special = ?", false).
order("name ASC")
end
This has route:
get 'my_class_names/autocomplete_my_class_name_foo'
Whereas the original has route:
get 'my_class_names/autocomplete_my_class_name_my_method'
This allows us to generate a 2nd, different autocomplete, on the same Class and Method as another, with its own unique name.
Having an independent name, vs the 'magic' autogenerated one (to save 1 second of typing?) would prevent this trouble - or am I missing something?
I'll leave this open for a bit to see if anyone has a better solution.
Is it possible to change the value in the Params hash when a Javascript function is called?
I have a hidden Div, say DIV1 that becomes visible based on the selected value in a select field, within DIV1, I have a readonly textfield whose value is set to a value returned by a helper method.
This helper method uses a dynamic find_by that depends on the value of Params,but I guess the param Hash doesn't change when the value of the select Changes (since it isn't a full page refresh?). Please, how do I Achieve updating this so that when the select Value changes, the new value is reflected in the params hash. I have :remote=>true in the form_for tag. Is there a better approach than mine?
The Select field in a rails view
#finance_year
<%=f.select :financeyear, options_for_select(finance_year),{ :include_blank => 'Select a
Financial Year' } %>
and a an onchange event for that select
jQuery ->
$('#finance').hide()
value = "Select a Financial Year"
$('#finance_financeyear').change ->
selected = $('#finance_financeyear :selected').text()
$('#finance').show()
$('#finance').hide() if selected is value
the helper Method
def amount_owed(student)
financeyear = params[:financeyear]
#thisstudent = Finance.find_last_by_user_id(#student.user_id,
:conditions => {:financeyear => financeyear } )
if(#thisstudent)
#amount_owed= #thisstudent.amount_owed
else
student.department.amount
end
end
I appreciate any help and I hope I've been able to ask the question intelligently.
The answer is AJAX.
First, we'll need to add a new route to config/routes.rb to make amount_owed() a true action:
get '/finance_years/amount_owed/:student_id/:financeyear' => "finance_years#amount_owed"
Next, we'll create a default view to be returned whenever the amount_owed() action is called:
/app/views/finance_years/amount_owed.html.erb
<%= #amount_owed %>
So, that part was easy. Now we need to edit the amount_owed action so it will work with our parameters:
/app/controllers/finance_years_controller.rb
def amount_owed(student)
financeyear = params[:financeyear]
#thisstudent = Finance.find_last_by_user_id(params[:student_id],
:conditions => {:financeyear => financeyear } )
if(#thisstudent)
#amount_owed= #thisstudent.amount_owed
else
#amount_owed = student.department.amount
end
end
This way, we can pass in the finance year and the student id from the params hash and get an amount_owed every time. Now, to give our coffeeScript access to the current student_id and finance_year variables, I'd add a couple hidden fields to the form in the view file:
/app/views/finance_years/_form.html.erb
<%= hidden_field_tag :student_id, #student_id %>
<%= hidden_field_tag :finance_year, #finance_year %>
The last trick is to edit the coffeeScript, firing an asynchronous GET request whenever the select box changes.
/app/assets/javascripts/finance_years.js.coffee
$('#finance_financeyear').change ->
student_id = $("#student_id").val()
finance_year = $("#finance_year").val()
selected = $('#finance_financeyear :selected').text()
$('#finance').show() unless selected == value
$.get "/finance_years/amount_owed/#{student_id}/#{finance_year}", (response)->
$('#finance input[type=text]').load(response)
And that's about all I can do being away from my rails development machine. Let me know if additional problems arise.
I'm not a rails expert, but you're not going to be able to modify server side code directly from javascript. You will need to make a call down to the server (either on a form submit or through an ajax request) to tell the server to update itself.
To clarify, the server code is responsible for the initial rendering of the page, but once the template has been rendered it doesn't exist on the client page. So you can't directly modify it from coffeescript/javascript. You need to send a request back to the server to handle that.
I'm trying to learn how to query a rails database and return the results as JSON. In my example, I want to query the data using the parameters, city and state.
So far, in my controller, I have gotten the following action to work.
def state
#bathrooms = Bathroom.where("state = ?" ,params[:state])
respond_to do |format|
format.json { render :json => #bathrooms }
format.js { render :nothing => true }
end
end
This is also my routing entry.
match '/bathrooms/state/:state',
:controller => "bathrooms",
:action => "state"
I can call this resource with the following URL:
http://localhost:3000/bathrooms/state/CA.json
That's all good but I don't know how to query by more than one parameter. Adding and AND clause in the controller seems to be easy enough.
BUT....I don't know how to
a.) Correctly write the routing entry?
b.) What would the URL look like if I tested it in a browser?
I've tried to understand rake routes but I must be missing something.
Could someone provide a basic example for what the action should look like? What the routing entry should look like and what does the URL to access the resource look like?
Again, if written in SQL, this is what I would like to be returned.
SELECT * from bathrooms WHERE city='Chicago' AND state = 'IL'
Any help appreciated.
You don't have to pass everything by the route - the URL also support GET parameters - those are the parameters you usually see after the question mark in the URL. You can add those GET parameters without changing your routes: http://localhost:3000/bathrooms/state/IL.json?city=Chicago. Then your can access the city parameter via params[:city]. but in your case, I think it will be better to use http://localhost:3000/bathrooms/index.json?state=IL&city=Chicago. You'll also need to change your routing to
match '/bathrooms/index',
:controller=>:bathrooms,
:action=>:index
and put the code in the index method of BathroomsController. You access the parameters the same - but the concept is different - you don't enter a state and look for bathrooms by city, you just look for bathrooms by state and city.
Anyways, you don't want to write the URL by hand - you want to a Rails helper or an HTML form generate it:
link_to "bathroom in Chicago, IL",:controller=>:bathrooms,:action=>:index,:state=>'IL',:city=>'Chicago'
If you want to use a form(to let the users choose their own state and city), you need to set it's method to GET:
form_tag {:controller=>:bathrooms,:action=>:index},:method=>:get do
and put state and city as fields.
It's also worth noting that while you can use SQL's AND to perform a search by multiple fields, you can also chain where methods: Bathroom.where(:state=>params[:state]).where(:city=>params[:city]).
You can put any arbitrary parameters in your querystring.
For example:
http://localhost:3000/bathrooms/state/CA.json?city=Chicago
your query looks like this:
#bathrooms = Bathroom.where("state = ? and city= ?" ,params[:state], params[:city])
Let's say I have a Rails 3 app that displays videos. The user can "Like" or "Dislike" the videos. Also, they can like/dislike other things like games. I need some help in the overall design and how to handle the RESTful routes.
Currently, I have a Like Class that uses polymorphic design so that objects are "likeable" (likeable_id, likeable_type)
I want to do this via AJAX (jQuery 1.5). So I was thinking something like:
javascript
// these are toggle buttons
$("likeVideo").click( function() {
$.ajax({
url: "/likes/video/" + video_id,
method: "POST",
....
});
} );
$("likeGame").click( function() {
$.ajax({
url: "/likes/game/" + game_id,
method: "POST",
....
});
} );
rails controller
Class Likes < ApplicationController
def video
# so that if you liked it before, you now DON'T LIKE it so change to -1
# or if you DIDN'T like it before, you now LIKE IT so change to 1
# do a "find_or_create_by..." and return JSON
# the JSON returned will notify JS if you now like or dislike so that the
# button can be changed to match
end
def game
# same logic as above
end
end
Routes
match "/likes/video/:id" => "likes#video", :as => :likes_video
match "/likes/game/:id" => "likes#game", :as => :likes_game
Does this logic seem correct? I am doing a POST via AJAX. Technically, shouldn't I be doing a PUT? Or am I being too picky over that?
Also, my controller uses non-standard verbs. Like video and game. Should I worry about that? Sometimes I get confused on how to match up the "correct" verbs.
An alternative would be to post to something like /likes/:id with a data structure that contains the type (game or video). Then I could wrap that in one verb in the controller...maybe even Update (PUT).
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Rest architectural style does not specify which "verb" you should be using for what. It simply says that one can use HTTP if they want to for connectors.
What you are looking for is HTTP specifications for method definitions. In particular POST is intended for:
- Annotation of existing resources;
- Posting a message to a bulletin board, newsgroup, mailing list,
or similar group of articles;
- Providing a block of data, such as the result of submitting a
form, to a data-handling process;
- Extending a database through an append operation.
while PUT:
requests that the enclosed entity be stored under the supplied Request-URI. If the Request-URI refers to an already existing resource, the enclosed entity SHOULD be considered as a modified version of the one residing on the origin server.
Which category your functionality falls into is up to you - as long as you are consistent with yourself about it.
I'm aware that I can search queries by calling where() on a model as follows:
Post.where(:title => 'My First Post')
However, what if I don't know if the user wants to filter out the search parameters?
For example, I have a search form that has an optional title field. If the title is filled, the form should search for a title. If it is not, however, the form should just return all fields.
I tried doing something along the lines of
search = Post.all
if params[:title].present?
search.where(:title => params[:title])
end
However, Rails immidiately returns the result of the search when I call Post.all and I cannot further add conditions/
How do I do this?
Thanks!
.all is a 'finisher' method for arel and causes the query to actually be called (same goes for .each and .first). So, if you want to be able to keep building up the scope conditionally, .all should be the last thing called, if you want to call it at all.
Given that there really isn't much in the way of relations to chain here, it would seem that a simple one-liner with a ternary operator might do:
#posts = params[:title].present? ? Post.where(:title => params[:title]) : Post.all
... because when there is no :where clause scope, you couldn't later chain it to :all, anyway.