From nick at ekenosen.net  Fri Jun  1 00:06:09 2007
From: nick at ekenosen.net (nicholas a. evans)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 00:06:09 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Another attempt for a succinct model validation
	DSL
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0705311456p716f9c8mf564f3cd4cbfd40b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <276ff9870705311334t7dd388c8mf79fc6e7fa5aa695@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705311456p716f9c8mf564f3cd4cbfd40b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <276ff9870705312106u1dd74b9fj1eb3d1e9dec7eeee@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/31/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/31/07, nicholas a. evans <nick at ekenosen.net> wrote:
> > So here's my latest thought-experiment: http://pastie.caboo.se/66478
> > And also, a simpler multi-field version: http://pastie.caboo.se/66510

> I took at a shot at something that feels more like the rest of RSpec.
> It's admittedly more verbose than your examples, but I also think it
> speaks well and aligns with everything else in rspec. WDYT?
>
> http://pastie.caboo.se/66679

Oh!  I like it a *lot*.  Yes, it's more verbose on each example than I
prefer (8 characters plus two indentation levels plus the length of
the block variable).  But it does read more fluidly, and in many ways
it looks much simpler.  My "default_params" is simply your input to
"given".  My "columns" or "field_to_validate", is simply the
argument(s) to "it_should_require_that".  Likewise, "as" reads more
naturally than :msg (although I had been thinking of using
"with_message", which feels a bit more readable).

I have only one real objection/concern:

"given User.new" would pass in an object that would get reused for
each accept/reject line in the block.  I prefer the approach of
creating a new/fresh object for each example.  Perhaps it could accept
a Proc or a symbol representing a method name, searching first for an
instance method in the behavior, and then a class method on the class
being described.

"given :new" would get a different object from User.new before each example.
"given User.new" would reuse the same new User object for all of the examples.
"given :user_with_full_access" would call "user_with_full_access"
(defined in that behavior or on User) before each example.
"given user_with_full_access" would reuse the same object for all examples.

What do you think?  Is there a better way?


A few more thoughts and questions:

How about "it_should_validate_that" rather than
"it_should_require_that"?  That feels more explicit and to-the-point,
to me.  At that point, the ":behavior_type => :validation" becomes
redundant.  "it_should_validate_that" could simply be available to all
model behaviors.

What else could "given" be used for?  It seems like this could become
a pattern/approach that could extend beyond model validations...  Have
you thought about using it for anything else yet?

How could we specify a *default* rejection message (or error count,
etc)?  Does "user.default_rejection_message = /the message/" (and so
on) look reasonable?

I did like that the each example/assertion got its own entry in the
specdoc with my approach...  Do you think that it is best to sum it up
to the rule?  Either way, I presume that a failure should still run
all of examples to give a full report, rather than stop at the first
wrong one.

My approach assumed that if you were only working with one field, we
should only check for errors on that one field (it's okay if the
object is otherwise invalid).  But if you are working with multiple
fields, you should check to see if the entire object is valid, and
check against all error messages.  Do you think that is a safe and
reasonable convention?

Thanks for your thoughts... and your improvements on my thoughts.  :-)

-- 
Nick

From daniel at danielfischer.com  Fri Jun  1 00:09:21 2007
From: daniel at danielfischer.com (Fischer, Daniel)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 21:09:21 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Could anyone please help with rspec/nested
	resource behavior checking?
In-Reply-To: <7e565b5c0705310503l6af1f834n5d0363633787b59a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7e565b5c0705301703w334c3e2dg3f05d734ed76cd5a@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D95C70C-B551-43D3-AE07-5E7FFD9C5B74@parkerhill.com>
	<7e565b5c0705301807o42711e51w555ace5e8c037c84@mail.gmail.com>
	<e282921e0705302201l3c77a951y97234f639adeeeee@mail.gmail.com>
	<7e565b5c0705302317s6a4ae3b7raa72f362a7f063d9@mail.gmail.com>
	<7e565b5c0705310131l441129dfif4441e2759d26afb@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705310342h42ab6f51x77c3576c9f77f69c@mail.gmail.com>
	<7e565b5c0705310417u1d1fef0fv8a152b938c672966@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705310428x57847426gaef8bc3d2733cfc1@mail.gmail.com>
	<7e565b5c0705310503l6af1f834n5d0363633787b59a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7e565b5c0705312109j107a524cmed721984b91538a2@mail.gmail.com>

Alright so I removed the 'nested' resources, but I still have another
problem. Most of my failures are gone, but I still have three left:


1)
Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in 'PostsController handling GET
/posts/1;edit should find the posts requested'
Post expected :find with (any args) once, but received it twice
./spec/controllers/posts_controller_spec.rb:217:

2)
Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in 'PostsController handling POST
/posts should create a new posts'
Mock 'Post_1027' received unexpected message :user_id= with (202018)
/Users/sparta/Projects/work/idastudios/podff_machine/config/../app/controllers/posts_controller.rb:36:in
`create'
/Users/sparta/Projects/work/idastudios/podff_machine/config/../vendor/plugins/haml/lib/sass/plugin.rb:116:in
`process_without_test'
./spec/controllers/posts_controller_spec.rb:250:in `do_post'
./spec/controllers/posts_controller_spec.rb:256:

3)
Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in 'PostsController handling POST
/posts should redirect to the new posts'
Mock 'Post_1028' received unexpected message :user_id= with (202018)
/Users/sparta/Projects/work/idastudios/podff_machine/config/../app/controllers/posts_controller.rb:36:in
`create'
/Users/sparta/Projects/work/idastudios/podff_machine/config/../vendor/plugins/haml/lib/sass/plugin.rb:116:in
`process_without_test'
./spec/controllers/posts_controller_spec.rb:250:in `do_post'
./spec/controllers/posts_controller_spec.rb:260:

Finished in 0.697209 seconds

38 examples, 3 failures

I don't understand the first one, but I do have an idea on the
second/third one. I am setting the @post.user_id to the current user
in the controller, I'm trying to mock that behavior but whatever I try
doesn't work. What would be the proper way? Right now I am doing this:


  it "should create a new posts" do
    Post.should_receive(:user_id).and_return(1)
    Post.should_receive(:new).with({'name' => 'Post'}).and_return(@post)
    do_post
  end

still fails with that message though :(
On 5/31/07, Fischer, Daniel <daniel at danielfischer.com> wrote:
> David,
>
> Awesome - well at least it's telling me something isn't working "that well"
> anymore.
>
> Instead of the previous "expected success? to return true, got false"
>
> It's now "Couldn't find User with ID=1"
>
> But I swore that same code worked before, it looks proper in my pastie
> doesn't it?
>
> *scratches head* - it certainly works when it's "live".
>
> On 5/31/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/31/07, Fischer, Daniel <daniel at danielfischer.com> wrote:
> > > 1)
> > > 'PostsController handling GET /users/1/posts should be successful'
> FAILED
> > > expected success? to return true, got false
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-1.0.2/lib/spec/expectations.rb:52:in
> > > `fail_with'
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-1.0.2/lib/spec/expectations/handler.rb:16:in
> > > `handle_matcher'
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-1.0.2/lib/spec/expectations/extensions/object.rb:32:in
> > > `should'
> > >  ./spec/controllers/posts_controller_spec.rb:46:
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-
> 1.0.2/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:73:in
> > > `instance_eval'
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-1.0.2/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:73:in
> > > `run_example'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-
> 1.0.2/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:23:in
> > > `run'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/timeout.rb:48:in `timeout'
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-1.0.2/lib/spec/dsl/example.rb:21:in
> > > `run'
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-1.0.2/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour.rb:72:in
> > > `run'
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-1.0.2/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour.rb:69:in
> > > `each'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-
> > > 1.0.2/lib/spec/dsl/behaviour.rb:69:in `run'
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-1.0.2/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:45:in
> > > `run_behaviours'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-
> 1.0.2/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:44:in
> > > `each'
> > >
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-1.0.2/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:44:in
> > > `run_behaviours'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-
> 1.0.2/lib/spec/runner/behaviour_runner.rb:27:in
> > > `run'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-
> > > 1.0.2/lib/spec/runner/command_line.rb:17:in `run'
> > > /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rspec-
> 1.0.2/bin/spec:3:
> > > /usr/local/bin/spec:18:in `load'
> > > /usr/local/bin/spec:18:
> > >
> > > Doesn't really tell me anything, how about you?
> >
> > Nope. Thanks for playing ;)
> >
> > One thing - controller examples used to implicitly re-raise controller
> > errors. We removed this in response to a bug report, which had the
> > insidious side-effect of hiding errors without you knowing. If you
> > upgrade to 1.0.4, you'll see a call in spec_helper.rb to
> > raise_controller_errors. This is a new method that lets you do so
> > explicitly, and is included in spec_helper.rb by default.
> >
> > I'm thinking this might help expose the problem.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/31/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > On 5/31/07, Fischer, Daniel <daniel at danielfischer.com> wrote:
> > > > > Oh my...
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know what happened... but my entire posts_controller_spec
> > > > > completely exploded and i'm having 31 failures, before I was having
> > > > > like 8. I'm not sure what is going on, I could REALLY use the help.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://pastie.caboo.se/66440 for a list of everything that is going
> > > > > on, and the code.
> > > >
> > > > Try running the one file with the -b switch to get a full backtrace.
> > > >
> > > > script/spec spec/controllers/posts_controller_spec.rb
> -b
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I really appreciate the help guys, once I get over the mountain I'm
> > > > > sure I'll understand it :)
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/30/07, Fischer, Daniel < daniel at danielfischer.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Okay that failed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I could really use a full blown example with this, just mocking
> isn't
> > > going
> > > > > > to "give me insight" anymore I don't think. If anyone can post a
> basic
> > > crud
> > > > > > behavior check, w/ nested routes - I'd really appreciate it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Daniel
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 5/30/07, Chris Anderson <jchris at mfdz.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I usually do something like this in my before(:each) section:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > User.stub!(:find).and_return(@u = mock_model(User, :posts => @pc
> =
> > > > > > > mock('posts collection')))
> > > > > > > @pc.stub(:find).and_return([@p = mock_model(Post)])
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > with the corresponding should_receives in my various examples...
> the
> > > > > > > trick is to mock the user's posts collection as its own object.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 5/30/07, Fischer, Daniel < daniel at danielfischer.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Jonathan,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yeah something like that. I have no idea how to put it
> together
> > > > > > > > properly. I'm beyond confused at this point, that's why I
> could
> > > really
> > > > > > > > use some help.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I figured out my "response" error, but now Im trying to "find
> all
> > > posts"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Right now I got something like:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> User.should_receive(:posts).with(:all).and_return([@posts])
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But I know it should be User.posts.find(:all) - i'm not sure
> how
> > > to
> > > > > > > > make this a proper behavior check.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How do I setup my mocks to correspond with this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 5/30/07, Jonathan Linowes < jonathan at parkerhill.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Don't you need to stub the User model :find too? (needed in
> your
> > > > > > > > > private get_user call)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >     private
> > > > > > > > >     def get_user
> > > > > > > > >       @user = User.find(params[:user_id])
> > > > > > > > >       @post = @user.posts.find(params[:id]) if params[:id]
> > > > > > > > >     end
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On May 30, 2007, at 8:03 PM, Fischer, Daniel wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My problem has been listed here:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> http://railsforum.com/viewtopic.php?pid=25439#p25439
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Don't think it would be required to completely re-type it
> here
> > > :)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > -Daniel Fischer
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > http://danielfischer.com - Geek Blog
> > > > > > > > > > http://abigfisch.com - Portfolio
> > > > > > > > > > http://writersbeat.com - Writing Community
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > -Daniel Fischer
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://danielfischer.com - Geek Blog
> > > > > > > > http://abigfisch.com - Portfolio
> > > > > > > > http://writersbeat.com - Writing Community
> > > > > > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > > > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > > > > >
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Chris Anderson
> > > > > > > http://jchris.mfdz.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Daniel Fischer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://danielfischer.com - Geek Blog
> > > > > >  http://abigfisch.com - Portfolio
> > > > > > http://writersbeat.com - Writing Community
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > -Daniel Fischer
> > > > >
> > > > > http://danielfischer.com - Geek Blog
> > > > > http://abigfisch.com - Portfolio
> > > > > http://writersbeat.com - Writing Community
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > -Daniel Fischer
> > >
> > > http://danielfischer.com - Geek Blog
> > >   http://abigfisch.com - Portfolio
> > > http://writersbeat.com - Writing Community
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> -Daniel Fischer
>
>  http://danielfischer.com - Geek Blog
> http://abigfisch.com - Portfolio
> http://writersbeat.com - Writing Community


-- 
-Daniel Fischer

http://danielfischer.com - Geek Blog
http://abigfisch.com - Portfolio
http://writersbeat.com - Writing Community

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 01:00:29 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 01:00:29 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Another attempt for a succinct model validation
	DSL
In-Reply-To: <276ff9870705312106u1dd74b9fj1eb3d1e9dec7eeee@mail.gmail.com>
References: <276ff9870705311334t7dd388c8mf79fc6e7fa5aa695@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705311456p716f9c8mf564f3cd4cbfd40b@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870705312106u1dd74b9fj1eb3d1e9dec7eeee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0705312200y274a4f43x966600bce6885d5a@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/07, nicholas a. evans <nick at ekenosen.net> wrote:
> On 5/31/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/31/07, nicholas a. evans <nick at ekenosen.net> wrote:
> > > So here's my latest thought-experiment: http://pastie.caboo.se/66478
> > > And also, a simpler multi-field version: http://pastie.caboo.se/66510
>
> > I took at a shot at something that feels more like the rest of RSpec.
> > It's admittedly more verbose than your examples, but I also think it
> > speaks well and aligns with everything else in rspec. WDYT?
> >
> > http://pastie.caboo.se/66679
>
> Oh!  I like it a *lot*.  Yes, it's more verbose on each example than I
> prefer (8 characters plus two indentation levels plus the length of
> the block variable).  But it does read more fluidly, and in many ways
> it looks much simpler.  My "default_params" is simply your input to
> "given".  My "columns" or "field_to_validate", is simply the
> argument(s) to "it_should_require_that".  Likewise, "as" reads more
> naturally than :msg (although I had been thinking of using
> "with_message", which feels a bit more readable).
>
> I have only one real objection/concern:
>
> "given User.new" would pass in an object that would get reused for
> each accept/reject line in the block.  I prefer the approach of
> creating a new/fresh object for each example.  Perhaps it could accept
> a Proc or a symbol representing a method name, searching first for an
> instance method in the behavior, and then a class method on the class
> being described.
>
> "given :new" would get a different object from User.new before each example.
> "given User.new" would reuse the same new User object for all of the examples.
> "given :user_with_full_access" would call "user_with_full_access"
> (defined in that behavior or on User) before each example.
> "given user_with_full_access" would reuse the same object for all examples.
>
> What do you think?  Is there a better way?

I put up a third version: http://pastie.caboo.se/66776

WDYT?

> A few more thoughts and questions:
>
> How about "it_should_validate_that" rather than
> "it_should_require_that"?

"validate" is fine.

> That feels more explicit and to-the-point,
> to me.  At that point, the ":behavior_type => :validation" becomes
> redundant.  "it_should_validate_that" could simply be available to all
> model behaviors.

Why not just stick it in a module and let the user decide where to
make it available? If you, as a user of this extension, wanted it
available to all model examples, you could do this:

Spec::Runner.configure do |config|
  config.include(ModelValidations, :behaviour_type => :model)
end

> What else could "given" be used for?  It seems like this could become
> a pattern/approach that could extend beyond model validations...  Have
> you thought about using it for anything else yet?

Not yet. I was just bouncing off  your proposal. Let's see how this
works in practice before we start creating conventions :)

> How could we specify a *default* rejection message (or error count,
> etc)?  Does "user.default_rejection_message = /the message/" (and so
> on) look reasonable?

That seems like you're telling the user to use a specific message
rather than generally expecting it, which is what I *think* you mean.
Am I missing it?

>
> I did like that the each example/assertion got its own entry in the
> specdoc with my approach...  Do you think that it is best to sum it up
> to the rule?  Either way, I presume that a failure should still run
> all of examples to give a full report, rather than stop at the first
> wrong one.

I think you can get all that. The #given method has a handle on the
object before it yields to the block, the should_reject and
should_accept methods can be configured to create examples at run
time. Make sense?

>
> My approach assumed that if you were only working with one field, we
> should only check for errors on that one field (it's okay if the
> object is otherwise invalid).  But if you are working with multiple
> fields, you should check to see if the entire object is valid, and
> check against all error messages.  Do you think that is a safe and
> reasonable convention?

This could get quite complicated. Which is probably why nobody has
tackled this in a generic way yet - at least that I've seen.

>
> Thanks for your thoughts... and your improvements on my thoughts.  :-)

My pleasure. I'm looking forward to seeing how this turns out.

Cheers,
David

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

From justnothing at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Jun  1 05:00:53 2007
From: justnothing at tiscali.co.uk (David Green)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 02:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [rspec-users] rspec_on_rails,
 could someone provide an example of using mocks/stubs?
Message-ID: <10909256.post@talk.nabble.com>


hi all

I'm still a little uncertain on how to use mocks/stubs with rspec when
dealing with associations. I know the point is to isolate the code being
tested and remove external dependencies, but I'm not sure how to implement
it. Can someone suggest how they would spec the code below:

I have a Book model and Review model

class Book < ActiveRecord::Base
  has_many :reviews

  def update_rating
    new_rating = 0.0
    unless reviews.empty?
      reviews.each {|r| new_rating += r.rating}
      new_rating /= review.size
    end
    update_attribute(:rating, new_rating)
  end

end

The review class is just a standard model with a :rating attribute. Here's
the (empty) spec i came up with:

describe Book, ".update_rating" do

  it "should set rating to 0.0 when there are no reviews" do
  end

  it "should set :rating to the average rating when there are reviews" do
  end

end

I know I'm supposed to implement the specs first but I wrote the
update_attribute() method here to show the kinds of method calls it would be
making. Here's what I think I need to do:

- stub @book.reviews to return a mock object e.g. mock_reviews
- stub mock_reviews.each to return another mock e.g. mock_r
- stub mock_r.rating to return some value

am I on the right track? it seems like a lot of preparation for such a
simple test. Is there a better way?
thanks

dave
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/rspec_on_rails%2C-could-someone-provide-an-example-of-using-mocks-stubs--tf3851161.html#a10909256
Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


From nick at ekenosen.net  Fri Jun  1 10:34:23 2007
From: nick at ekenosen.net (nicholas a. evans)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 10:34:23 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Another attempt for a succinct model validation
	DSL
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0705312200y274a4f43x966600bce6885d5a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <276ff9870705311334t7dd388c8mf79fc6e7fa5aa695@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705311456p716f9c8mf564f3cd4cbfd40b@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870705312106u1dd74b9fj1eb3d1e9dec7eeee@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705312200y274a4f43x966600bce6885d5a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <276ff9870706010734q601c018bvc82dc1196d9da00c@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> I put up a third version: http://pastie.caboo.se/66776

I looks like you lost the ability to know which field was being
validated, so I changed it back to it_should_validate_that :field,
"satisfies rule"

> Why not just stick it in a module and let the user decide where to
> make it available?

That makes sense.

> Not yet. I was just bouncing off  your proposal. Let's see how this
> works in practice before we start creating conventions :)

Good point.  :-)

> That seems like you're telling the user to use a specific message
> rather than generally expecting it, which is what I *think* you mean.
> Am I missing it?

You're right... I'll worry about that feature later, then.  :-)

> I think you can get all that. The #given method has a handle on the
> object before it yields to the block, the should_reject and
> should_accept methods can be configured to create examples at run
> time. Make sense?

Yeah, but we've also added a string via "it_should_validate_that"...
What would the specdoc look like?  We don't have a mechanism for
nesting 3 levels deep, do we?

> > My approach assumed that if you were only working with one field, we
> > should only check for errors on that one field (it's okay if the
> > object is otherwise invalid).  But if you are working with multiple
> > fields, you should check to see if the entire object is valid, and
> > check against all error messages.  Do you think that is a safe and
> > reasonable convention?
>
> This could get quite complicated. Which is probably why nobody has
> tackled this in a generic way yet - at least that I've seen.

True... but it feels like we're getting close to something that is
very good and simple.  It doesn't need to solve 100% of the world's
validation needs... just 85% of my rails validation needs.  For
anything more complicated, I can always fall back on vanilla rspec
(still pretty tasty!).  For my tastes and intuition, I prefer that
validation specs against a single field check only that single field's
validity, and validations specs against multiple fields check the
model's validity.  But I would be fine if it were simplified to
normally check only the fields under inspection, but could be easily
changed to check for any errors on the object.

Here are my next several attempts:

Playing off of your approach and including a number of proposed
specdoc outputs: http://pastie.caboo.se/66855

But here's my current favorite approach: http://pastie.caboo.se/66862



-- 
Nick

From nick at ekenosen.net  Fri Jun  1 11:11:31 2007
From: nick at ekenosen.net (nicholas a. evans)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 11:11:31 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Another attempt for a succinct model validation
	DSL
In-Reply-To: <276ff9870706010734q601c018bvc82dc1196d9da00c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <276ff9870705311334t7dd388c8mf79fc6e7fa5aa695@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705311456p716f9c8mf564f3cd4cbfd40b@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870705312106u1dd74b9fj1eb3d1e9dec7eeee@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705312200y274a4f43x966600bce6885d5a@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010734q601c018bvc82dc1196d9da00c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <276ff9870706010811s58a95c54x642296c18837fbee@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/07, nicholas a. evans <nick at ekenosen.net> wrote:
> But here's my current favorite approach: http://pastie.caboo.se/66862

Ack!  I had some silly/bad ruby syntax in that last pastie.

Let's try that again; now with improved (valid) ruby syntax!

http://pastie.caboo.se/66896

-- 
Nick

From tristil at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 12:17:31 2007
From: tristil at gmail.com (Joseph Method)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 12:17:31 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Another attempt for a succinct model validation
	DSL
In-Reply-To: <276ff9870706010811s58a95c54x642296c18837fbee@mail.gmail.com>
References: <276ff9870705311334t7dd388c8mf79fc6e7fa5aa695@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705311456p716f9c8mf564f3cd4cbfd40b@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870705312106u1dd74b9fj1eb3d1e9dec7eeee@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705312200y274a4f43x966600bce6885d5a@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010734q601c018bvc82dc1196d9da00c@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010811s58a95c54x642296c18837fbee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <167b6aa00706010917h740ca9d4k20d543d7c11da8f8@mail.gmail.com>

What about 'this' as a reserved name for what's given?

given { User.new }
this.should_reject (nil)

given { User.new(:name => 'Bob' }
this.should_reject(nil)

On 6/1/07, nicholas a. evans <nick at ekenosen.net> wrote:
> On 6/1/07, nicholas a. evans <nick at ekenosen.net> wrote:
> > But here's my current favorite approach: http://pastie.caboo.se/66862
>
> Ack!  I had some silly/bad ruby syntax in that last pastie.
>
> Let's try that again; now with improved (valid) ruby syntax!
>
> http://pastie.caboo.se/66896
>
> --
> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>


-- 
-J. Method

From nick at ekenosen.net  Fri Jun  1 13:02:24 2007
From: nick at ekenosen.net (nicholas a. evans)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:02:24 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Another attempt for a succinct model validation
	DSL
In-Reply-To: <167b6aa00706010917h740ca9d4k20d543d7c11da8f8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <276ff9870705311334t7dd388c8mf79fc6e7fa5aa695@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705311456p716f9c8mf564f3cd4cbfd40b@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870705312106u1dd74b9fj1eb3d1e9dec7eeee@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705312200y274a4f43x966600bce6885d5a@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010734q601c018bvc82dc1196d9da00c@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010811s58a95c54x642296c18837fbee@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706010917h740ca9d4k20d543d7c11da8f8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <276ff9870706011002m37cdd8edof459546602c8a3cd@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/07, Joseph Method <tristil at gmail.com> wrote:
> What about 'this' as a reserved name for what's given?

I thought about trying something like that, and thus try to get back
to the "normal" rspec syntax but it seems to me that "it" better
fulfills that role.

Here's my thought on a syntax like that: http://pastie.caboo.se/66937

How close does that compare to what you were thinking of, Joseph?

(I prefer to use "specify" rather than "it", when I'm using the
generated example string.)

Now that I look at it, I actually think this is a rather nice syntax.
But it's a lot more verbose than I'd like...  perhaps
"it_should_reject(foo)" could simply be shorthand for "specify {
it.should reject(foo) }".  This also makes it obvious how to override
the generated example string.

Thoughts?  Is it an evil or difficult thing to repurpose "it" to my
own dubious ends inside the examples?  I really like the idea of "it"
simply returning the result of the block that was previously passed to
"given"

-- 
Nick

> given { User.new }
> this.should_reject (nil)
>
> given { User.new(:name => 'Bob' }
> this.should_reject(nil)

From tristil at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 13:19:28 2007
From: tristil at gmail.com (Joseph Method)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:19:28 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Another attempt for a succinct model validation
	DSL
In-Reply-To: <276ff9870706011002m37cdd8edof459546602c8a3cd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <276ff9870705311334t7dd388c8mf79fc6e7fa5aa695@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705311456p716f9c8mf564f3cd4cbfd40b@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870705312106u1dd74b9fj1eb3d1e9dec7eeee@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705312200y274a4f43x966600bce6885d5a@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010734q601c018bvc82dc1196d9da00c@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010811s58a95c54x642296c18837fbee@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706010917h740ca9d4k20d543d7c11da8f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011002m37cdd8edof459546602c8a3cd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <167b6aa00706011019n46e3471dy6c0a526de1e31318@mail.gmail.com>

Well, this is what I was thinking: http://pastie.caboo.se/66940

> Thoughts?

Honestly, the extra depth is a big turn-off for me.

> Is it an evil or difficult thing to repurpose "it" to my
> own dubious ends inside the examples?  I really like the idea of "it"
> simply returning the result of the block that was previously passed to
> "given"
>
> --
> Nick

It's not evil, but I don't know how difficult it is. If it's not
difficult at all, I don't see why it can't be

it.should_validate :password do

-- 
-J. Method

From nick at ekenosen.net  Fri Jun  1 14:16:46 2007
From: nick at ekenosen.net (nicholas a. evans)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 14:16:46 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Another attempt for a succinct model validation
	DSL
In-Reply-To: <167b6aa00706011019n46e3471dy6c0a526de1e31318@mail.gmail.com>
References: <276ff9870705311334t7dd388c8mf79fc6e7fa5aa695@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705311456p716f9c8mf564f3cd4cbfd40b@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870705312106u1dd74b9fj1eb3d1e9dec7eeee@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705312200y274a4f43x966600bce6885d5a@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010734q601c018bvc82dc1196d9da00c@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010811s58a95c54x642296c18837fbee@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706010917h740ca9d4k20d543d7c11da8f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011002m37cdd8edof459546602c8a3cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011019n46e3471dy6c0a526de1e31318@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <276ff9870706011116o714208f4yc8e7243af7b774bb@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/07, Joseph Method <tristil at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, this is what I was thinking: http://pastie.caboo.se/66940

I think that I still prefer dedicating the entire behavior to
validation of a particular field (that's what I do in my current specs
anyway, albeit with far more lines of code).

> > Thoughts?
>
> Honestly, the extra depth is a big turn-off for me.

Strongly agreed in that regard.  10 extra characters on the front (and
two on the back), repeated over every example.  The whole point of
this is to clean up the syntactic noise to highlight the examples
themselves.

The reasons I see to use that approach: it matches *very* well with
the standard rspec way of doing things.  At that point, it's really
just the new given/it syntax, and a matcher that looks at some of the
behavior options (to see which fields are being spec'd).  And it gives
an obvious interface for overriding/ignoring the generated example
string.  Likewise, it gives a nice syntax if I want to do some more
advanced assertions on the model with that example.  But I think I
would use the shorthand version for 95% of my validation examples.
And the shorthand could effectively generate the proposed longhand
code.

> > Is it an evil or difficult thing to repurpose "it" to my
> > own dubious ends inside the examples?  I really like the idea of "it"
> > simply returning the result of the block that was previously passed to
> > "given"
>
> It's not evil, but I don't know how difficult it is. If it's not
> difficult at all, I don't see why it can't be
>
> it.should_validate :password do

I don't think it would be right to have the behavior method "it"
running double-duty (it is already used to create the examples).
Also, I don't really see much benefit of "it.should_validate" over
"it_should_validate".  But I do like the idea of the example method
"it" getting the results of the "given", and that should be easy (I
think).

-- 
Nick

From jonathan at parkerhill.com  Fri Jun  1 14:31:15 2007
From: jonathan at parkerhill.com (Jonathan Linowes)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 14:31:15 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Could anyone please help with rspec/nested
	resource behavior checking?
In-Reply-To: <e282921e0705302201l3c77a951y97234f639adeeeee@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7e565b5c0705301703w334c3e2dg3f05d734ed76cd5a@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D95C70C-B551-43D3-AE07-5E7FFD9C5B74@parkerhill.com>
	<7e565b5c0705301807o42711e51w555ace5e8c037c84@mail.gmail.com>
	<e282921e0705302201l3c77a951y97234f639adeeeee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <84AC7EEA-6A4E-44B8-B2AD-D41CE5FF4488@parkerhill.com>


I haven't thought it through (no pun intended) but maybe this could  
be simplified and generalized , like add a ".through" to the stub and/ 
or should_receive
??


On May 31, 2007, at 1:01 AM, Chris Anderson wrote:

> I usually do something like this in my before(:each) section:
>
> User.stub!(:find).and_return(@u = mock_model(User, :posts => @pc =
> mock('posts collection')))
> @pc.stub(:find).and_return([@p = mock_model(Post)])
>
> with the corresponding should_receives in my various examples... the
> trick is to mock the user's posts collection as its own object.
>


From tristil at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 14:47:04 2007
From: tristil at gmail.com (Joseph Method)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 14:47:04 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Another attempt for a succinct model validation
	DSL
In-Reply-To: <276ff9870706011116o714208f4yc8e7243af7b774bb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <276ff9870705311334t7dd388c8mf79fc6e7fa5aa695@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705311456p716f9c8mf564f3cd4cbfd40b@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870705312106u1dd74b9fj1eb3d1e9dec7eeee@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705312200y274a4f43x966600bce6885d5a@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010734q601c018bvc82dc1196d9da00c@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010811s58a95c54x642296c18837fbee@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706010917h740ca9d4k20d543d7c11da8f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011002m37cdd8edof459546602c8a3cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011019n46e3471dy6c0a526de1e31318@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011116o714208f4yc8e7243af7b774bb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <167b6aa00706011147q3e4449e0rcdf5ba06cff7c007@mail.gmail.com>

How about this?

http://pastie.caboo.se/66977

The strategy is to check if the string argument is :validations (so
this would become reserved). If it is, then include ModelValidations.
'it' without the block returns an object that contains a should
method. The block it opens is related to but different from the one
that 'it' opens.

given doesn't seem strictly necessary, since we know what's being
described, but it reads well and is explicit.

> I think that I still prefer dedicating the entire behavior to
> validation of a particular field (that's what I do in my current specs
> anyway, albeit with far more lines of code).

I'm sure we won't be able to agree on this, but it seems like overkill
to me. What if in this proposal there was an option for
:validation_of_password, etc.?

> I don't think it would be right to have the behavior method "it"
> running double-duty (it is already used to create the examples).
> Also, I don't really see much benefit of "it.should_validate" over
> "it_should_validate".  But I do like the idea of the example method
> "it" getting the results of the "given", and that should be easy (I
> think).

Yeah, what's described here might be too evil. In its defense, though,
the new 1.0 syntax seems to emphasize subject.should predicate over
subject.should_predicate, which is what I've tried to preserve.

> --
> Nick

-- 
-J. Method

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 18:01:09 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 18:01:09 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Another attempt for a succinct model validation
	DSL
In-Reply-To: <167b6aa00706011147q3e4449e0rcdf5ba06cff7c007@mail.gmail.com>
References: <276ff9870705311334t7dd388c8mf79fc6e7fa5aa695@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870705312106u1dd74b9fj1eb3d1e9dec7eeee@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705312200y274a4f43x966600bce6885d5a@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010734q601c018bvc82dc1196d9da00c@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010811s58a95c54x642296c18837fbee@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706010917h740ca9d4k20d543d7c11da8f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011002m37cdd8edof459546602c8a3cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011019n46e3471dy6c0a526de1e31318@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011116o714208f4yc8e7243af7b774bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011147q3e4449e0rcdf5ba06cff7c007@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0706011501w6b48892ej654223495d956344@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/07, Joseph Method <tristil at gmail.com> wrote:
> How about this?
>
> http://pastie.caboo.se/66977
>
> The strategy is to check if the string argument is :validations (so
> this would become reserved). If it is, then include ModelValidations.
> 'it' without the block returns an object that contains a should
> method. The block it opens is related to but different from the one
> that 'it' opens.
>
> given doesn't seem strictly necessary, since we know what's being
> described, but it reads well and is explicit.
>
> > I think that I still prefer dedicating the entire behavior to
> > validation of a particular field (that's what I do in my current specs
> > anyway, albeit with far more lines of code).
>
> I'm sure we won't be able to agree on this, but it seems like overkill
> to me. What if in this proposal there was an option for
> :validation_of_password, etc.?
>
> > I don't think it would be right to have the behavior method "it"
> > running double-duty (it is already used to create the examples).
> > Also, I don't really see much benefit of "it.should_validate" over
> > "it_should_validate".  But I do like the idea of the example method
> > "it" getting the results of the "given", and that should be easy (I
> > think).
>
> Yeah, what's described here might be too evil. In its defense, though,
> the new 1.0 syntax seems to emphasize subject.should predicate over
> subject.should_predicate, which is what I've tried to preserve.

Well now we're getting much simpler. Instead of a whole new structure,
why not just use a custom matcher?

http://pastie.caboo.se/67069

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

From anthony at digitalphenom.com  Fri Jun  1 18:20:32 2007
From: anthony at digitalphenom.com (Anthony Carlos)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 18:20:32 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Specs for ApplicationController,
	where to put them?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0705291652r2bb1ea05o29ed4b4ec96e29ed@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2D69A175-3C2A-4E38-A006-68695DF3E359@wincent.com>
	<C96F2DFF-CAE4-4530-BC53-5A83A00F206E@toolmantim.com>
	<050EF0F7-7EE3-4995-AFE3-0FD735F98167@digitalphenom.com>
	<583D179D-743C-49BB-9CFA-B31AF11C71E2@digitalphenom.com>
	<57c63afe0705291652r2bb1ea05o29ed4b4ec96e29ed@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C109CDF1-163D-47AE-9BC9-2235DA414C92@digitalphenom.com>


On May 29, 2007, at 7:52 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:

>> My problem now, is that I get a nil object error. Specifically, in
>> application.rb, I'm trying to call request.parameters and request is
>> nil. It seems that request is not part of the context anymore since I
>> moved the behavior out to a separate file. How do I regain access to
>> request, response, assigns, flash, and session?
>
> The fact that the shared examples are in another file should have no
> bearing on whether they have runtime access to whatever is in the
> behaviours that include them. This all sounds odd to me. Can you post
> a backtrace please?

David:

Here's the output from rake spec:autotest:

:
QuestionnairesController
- should flash notice when session[:current_user_id] does not exist  
(ERROR - 1)
- should return true when session[:current_user_id] exists
- should respond to current_user
- should respond to authenticate

1)
NoMethodError in 'QuestionnairesController should flash notice when  
session[:current_user_id] does not exist'
You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
The error occurred while evaluating nil.parameters
/Users/aec/ror/aca/aca_trunk/config/../app/controllers/application.rb: 
11:in `authenticate'
./spec/controllers/application_controller_spec.rb:24:

=====
Here's application_controller_spec.rb:
require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper'

unless Spec::DSL::Behaviour.find_shared_behaviour("All controllers")
   describe "All controllers", :shared => true do
     it "should respond to authenticate" do
       controller.should respond_to(:authenticate)
     end
     it "should respond to current_user" do
       controller.should respond_to(:current_user)
     end
     it "should return true when session[:current_user_id] exists" do
       session[:current_user_id] = 12345
       controller.authenticate.should == true
     end
     it "should flash notice when session[:current_user_id] does not  
exist" do
       session[:current_user_id] = nil
       controller.authenticate # <=====  This is line 24 where the  
error occurs!
       flash[:notice].should == 'Please login.'
     end
   end
end

=====
Here's application.rb:
class ApplicationController < ActionController::Base
   # Pick a unique cookie name to distinguish our session data from  
others'
   session :session_key => '_unique_session_id'

   def authenticate
     unless session[:current_user_id]
       flash[:notice] = 'Please login.'
       session[:jumpto] = request.parameters # <===== This is line 11  
where nil.parameters is called!
       redirect_to(:controller => 'ums', :action => 'login')
     end
     true
   end

   def current_user
     @current_user = User.find(session[:current_user_id])
   end
end

=====
Finally, here's questionnaires_controller_spec.rb:
require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper'
require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/application_controller_spec'  
unless Spec::DSL::Behaviour.find_shared_behaviour("All controllers")

describe QuestionnairesController do
   it_should_behave_like "All controllers"
end
:

=====
So as far as I can tell, my QuestionnairesController should behave  
like "All controllers" which puts us at  
application_controller_spec.rb. The first 3 examples pass, but the  
fourth, which calls ApplicationController.authenticate, gives me the  
nil object. But, isn't request an object that is always available to  
controllers?

Wait a second...

There's no get or post command here! Maybe thats why request is nil?  
I think so. Never mind! Sorry about the false alarm. I don't want to  
be the boy who cried wolf.

On the other hand, I think I avoided using get or post because this  
is an abstract action that gets called by other concrete classes. So  
how does one test logic in an abstract class? Smells like a job for a  
mock, of course?!? I'll look over the list archive-- I think other  
people have asked this question before.

Thanks for helping out the slow learners,

-Anthony

From aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 18:59:23 2007
From: aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com (aslak hellesoy)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 00:59:23 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] Another attempt for a succinct model validation
	DSL
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0706011501w6b48892ej654223495d956344@mail.gmail.com>
References: <276ff9870705311334t7dd388c8mf79fc6e7fa5aa695@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705312200y274a4f43x966600bce6885d5a@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010734q601c018bvc82dc1196d9da00c@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010811s58a95c54x642296c18837fbee@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706010917h740ca9d4k20d543d7c11da8f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011002m37cdd8edof459546602c8a3cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011019n46e3471dy6c0a526de1e31318@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011116o714208f4yc8e7243af7b774bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011147q3e4449e0rcdf5ba06cff7c007@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0706011501w6b48892ej654223495d956344@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8d961d900706011559s1056a929i2a64758e2aa577e8@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/2/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/1/07, Joseph Method <tristil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > How about this?
> >
> > http://pastie.caboo.se/66977
> >
> > The strategy is to check if the string argument is :validations (so
> > this would become reserved). If it is, then include ModelValidations.
> > 'it' without the block returns an object that contains a should
> > method. The block it opens is related to but different from the one
> > that 'it' opens.
> >
> > given doesn't seem strictly necessary, since we know what's being
> > described, but it reads well and is explicit.
> >
> > > I think that I still prefer dedicating the entire behavior to
> > > validation of a particular field (that's what I do in my current specs
> > > anyway, albeit with far more lines of code).
> >
> > I'm sure we won't be able to agree on this, but it seems like overkill
> > to me. What if in this proposal there was an option for
> > :validation_of_password, etc.?
> >
> > > I don't think it would be right to have the behavior method "it"
> > > running double-duty (it is already used to create the examples).
> > > Also, I don't really see much benefit of "it.should_validate" over
> > > "it_should_validate".  But I do like the idea of the example method
> > > "it" getting the results of the "given", and that should be easy (I
> > > think).
> >
> > Yeah, what's described here might be too evil. In its defense, though,
> > the new 1.0 syntax seems to emphasize subject.should predicate over
> > subject.should_predicate, which is what I've tried to preserve.
>
> Well now we're getting much simpler. Instead of a whole new structure,
> why not just use a custom matcher?
>
> http://pastie.caboo.se/67069
>

Brilliant!

Aslak

> >
> > > --
> > > Nick
> >
> > --
> > -J. Method
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 luislavena at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 19:40:59 2007
From: luislavena at gmail.com (Luis Lavena)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 20:40:59 -0300
Subject: [rspec-users] Another attempt for a succinct model validation
	DSL
In-Reply-To: <8d961d900706011559s1056a929i2a64758e2aa577e8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <276ff9870705311334t7dd388c8mf79fc6e7fa5aa695@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010734q601c018bvc82dc1196d9da00c@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010811s58a95c54x642296c18837fbee@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706010917h740ca9d4k20d543d7c11da8f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011002m37cdd8edof459546602c8a3cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011019n46e3471dy6c0a526de1e31318@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011116o714208f4yc8e7243af7b774bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011147q3e4449e0rcdf5ba06cff7c007@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0706011501w6b48892ej654223495d956344@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d961d900706011559s1056a929i2a64758e2aa577e8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <71166b3b0706011640i4c731402td3f180b83952b24f@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/07, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/1/07, Joseph Method <tristil at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Well now we're getting much simpler. Instead of a whole new structure,
> > why not just use a custom matcher?
> >
> > http://pastie.caboo.se/67069
> >
>
> Brilliant!
>

I agree with aslak on this!

Is descriptive, but not too verbose, is simple but not too cryptic.

Translation: Looks good, are you willing to share it? ;-)

(David and Aslak, I didn't found a example on how to implemente a
custom matcher like Jospeh did, guess I missed a lot of RDocs :-P

-- 
Luis Lavena
Multimedia systems
-
Leaders are made, they are not born. They are made by hard effort,
which is the price which all of us must pay to achieve any goal that
is worthwhile.
Vince Lombardi

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 19:48:59 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 19:48:59 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Another attempt for a succinct model validation
	DSL
In-Reply-To: <71166b3b0706011640i4c731402td3f180b83952b24f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <276ff9870705311334t7dd388c8mf79fc6e7fa5aa695@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010811s58a95c54x642296c18837fbee@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706010917h740ca9d4k20d543d7c11da8f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011002m37cdd8edof459546602c8a3cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011019n46e3471dy6c0a526de1e31318@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011116o714208f4yc8e7243af7b774bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011147q3e4449e0rcdf5ba06cff7c007@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0706011501w6b48892ej654223495d956344@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d961d900706011559s1056a929i2a64758e2aa577e8@mail.gmail.com>
	<71166b3b0706011640i4c731402td3f180b83952b24f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0706011648l7b96493cv6cabb962e0b21d0a@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/07, Luis Lavena <luislavena at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/1/07, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/1/07, Joseph Method <tristil at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well now we're getting much simpler. Instead of a whole new structure,
> > > why not just use a custom matcher?
> > >
> > > http://pastie.caboo.se/67069
> > >
> >
> > Brilliant!
> >
>
> I agree with aslak on this!
>
> Is descriptive, but not too verbose, is simple but not too cryptic.
>
> Translation: Looks good, are you willing to share it? ;-)
>
> (David and Aslak, I didn't found a example on how to implemente a
> custom matcher like Jospeh did, guess I missed a lot of RDocs :-P

Check this out - I think it's what you're looking for.

http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/articles/2007/02/18/custom-expectation-matchers

Cheers,
David

>
> --
> Luis Lavena
> Multimedia systems
> -
> Leaders are made, they are not born. They are made by hard effort,
> which is the price which all of us must pay to achieve any goal that
> is worthwhile.
> Vince Lombardi
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From luislavena at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 19:54:32 2007
From: luislavena at gmail.com (Luis Lavena)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 20:54:32 -0300
Subject: [rspec-users] Another attempt for a succinct model validation
	DSL
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0706011648l7b96493cv6cabb962e0b21d0a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <276ff9870705311334t7dd388c8mf79fc6e7fa5aa695@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706010917h740ca9d4k20d543d7c11da8f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011002m37cdd8edof459546602c8a3cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011019n46e3471dy6c0a526de1e31318@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011116o714208f4yc8e7243af7b774bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011147q3e4449e0rcdf5ba06cff7c007@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0706011501w6b48892ej654223495d956344@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d961d900706011559s1056a929i2a64758e2aa577e8@mail.gmail.com>
	<71166b3b0706011640i4c731402td3f180b83952b24f@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0706011648l7b96493cv6cabb962e0b21d0a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <71166b3b0706011654h48e3b72ft2709a3c12441da9e@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> >
> > (David and Aslak, I didn't found a example on how to implemente a
> > custom matcher like Jospeh did, guess I missed a lot of RDocs :-P
>
> Check this out - I think it's what you're looking for.
>
> http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/articles/2007/02/18/custom-expectation-matchers
>

Thanks David, but I'm already a subscriber of your blog ;-)

What I really meant to say is the .as(:attribute).because("message")
part of the custom matcher I didn't fully understand :-P

Are examples of that in the repository?

-- 
Luis Lavena
Multimedia systems
-
Leaders are made, they are not born. They are made by hard effort,
which is the price which all of us must pay to achieve any goal that
is worthwhile.
Vince Lombardi

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sat Jun  2 00:19:20 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 00:19:20 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Another attempt for a succinct model validation
	DSL
In-Reply-To: <71166b3b0706011654h48e3b72ft2709a3c12441da9e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <276ff9870705311334t7dd388c8mf79fc6e7fa5aa695@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011002m37cdd8edof459546602c8a3cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011019n46e3471dy6c0a526de1e31318@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011116o714208f4yc8e7243af7b774bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011147q3e4449e0rcdf5ba06cff7c007@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0706011501w6b48892ej654223495d956344@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d961d900706011559s1056a929i2a64758e2aa577e8@mail.gmail.com>
	<71166b3b0706011640i4c731402td3f180b83952b24f@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0706011648l7b96493cv6cabb962e0b21d0a@mail.gmail.com>
	<71166b3b0706011654h48e3b72ft2709a3c12441da9e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0706012119v6195e4f4y112fe157e9797dfc@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/07, Luis Lavena <luislavena at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/1/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > >
> > > (David and Aslak, I didn't found a example on how to implemente a
> > > custom matcher like Jospeh did, guess I missed a lot of RDocs :-P
> >
> > Check this out - I think it's what you're looking for.
> >
> > http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/articles/2007/02/18/custom-expectation-matchers
> >
>
> Thanks David, but I'm already a subscriber of your blog ;-)
>
> What I really meant to say is the .as(:attribute).because("message")
> part of the custom matcher I didn't fully understand :-P
>
> Are examples of that in the repository?

Take a look at lib/spec/matchers/change.rb. That should give you some direction.

>
> --
> Luis Lavena
> Multimedia systems
> -
> Leaders are made, they are not born. They are made by hard effort,
> which is the price which all of us must pay to achieve any goal that
> is worthwhile.
> Vince Lombardi
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From daniel at danielfischer.com  Sat Jun  2 04:27:32 2007
From: daniel at danielfischer.com (Fischer, Daniel)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 01:27:32 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] I'm really bad at controllers, help please.
Message-ID: <7e565b5c0706020127m121fc734o10dc9b6cd763e635@mail.gmail.com>

Hey,

Sorry for so many questions - I'm really bad at this right now.

I'm trying to cover the following code w/ rspec

  def index
    if params[:user_id]
      @user = User.find(params[:user_id])
      @messages = @user.messages
    end
  end

So basically what I'm doing is listing all the messages for a user,
provided there is an id parameter.

describe MessagesController, " handling GET /messages for a user" do

  before do
    @message = mock_model(Message)
    @message.stub!(:user_id).and_return(1)
    @user = mock_model(User)
    @user.stub!(:id).and_return(1)
    User.stub!(:messages).and_return([@message])
    User.stub!(:find).and_return([@user])
  end

  def do_get
    get :index, :user_id => 1
  end

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

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

  it "should find all messages" do
    User.should_receive(:messages).and_return([@message])
    do_get
  end

  it "should assign the found messages for the view" do
    do_get
    assigns[:messages].should == [@message]
  end
end


I'm trying to use the basic scaffold spec, but I'm absolutely clueless
on what the proper way to handle this is, I'm not even sure the proper
way I should mock the messages method, so it'll return a "stub?" of a
collection, or whatever the proper term is.

I'm sorry you have to deal with a newb, but if you could really help
me out I'd appreciate it a ton, thanks!
-- 
-Daniel Fischer

From arachnd at gmail.com  Sat Jun  2 04:29:47 2007
From: arachnd at gmail.com (Fischer, Daniel)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 01:29:47 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] I'm really bad at controllers, help please.
Message-ID: <7e565b5c0706020129k594e1be3r9b6230e70ec4c911@mail.gmail.com>

Hey,

Sorry for so many questions - I'm really bad at this right now.

I'm trying to cover the following code w/ rspec

 def index
   if params[:user_id]
     @user = User.find(params[:user_id])
     @messages = @user.messages
   end
 end

So basically what I'm doing is listing all the messages for a user,
provided there is an id parameter.

describe MessagesController, " handling GET /messages for a user" do

 before do
   @message = mock_model(Message)
   @message.stub!(:user_id).and_return(1)
   @user = mock_model(User)
   @user.stub!(:id).and_return(1)
   User.stub!(:messages).and_return([@message])
   User.stub!(:find).and_return([@user])
 end

 def do_get
   get :index, :user_id => 1
 end

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

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

 it "should find all messages" do
   User.should_receive(:messages).and_return([@message])
   do_get
 end

 it "should assign the found messages for the view" do
   do_get
   assigns[:messages].should == [@message]
 end
end


I'm trying to use the basic scaffold spec, but I'm absolutely clueless
on what the proper way to handle this is, I'm not even sure the proper
way I should mock the messages method, so it'll return a "stub?" of a
collection, or whatever the proper term is.

I'm sorry you have to deal with a newb, but if you could really help
me out I'd appreciate it a ton, thanks!

-Daniel Fischer
http://www.danielfischer.com

From daniel at danielfischer.com  Sat Jun  2 04:31:21 2007
From: daniel at danielfischer.com (Fischer, Daniel)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 01:31:21 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] Could anyone please help with rspec/nested
	resource behavior checking?
In-Reply-To: <84AC7EEA-6A4E-44B8-B2AD-D41CE5FF4488@parkerhill.com>
References: <7e565b5c0705301703w334c3e2dg3f05d734ed76cd5a@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D95C70C-B551-43D3-AE07-5E7FFD9C5B74@parkerhill.com>
	<7e565b5c0705301807o42711e51w555ace5e8c037c84@mail.gmail.com>
	<e282921e0705302201l3c77a951y97234f639adeeeee@mail.gmail.com>
	<84AC7EEA-6A4E-44B8-B2AD-D41CE5FF4488@parkerhill.com>
Message-ID: <7e565b5c0706020131p11d0390didc67fb1eacf1d0ee@mail.gmail.com>

Jonathon,

Not sure - I don't really know what to do at this point, but I have a
new problem again lol.

Anyway, I can't seem to create new mailing messages? I guess I ask to many...

Well, forgive me - but I'll just attach it here since I can't make a new one.

Hey,

Sorry for so many questions - I'm really bad at this right now.

I'm trying to cover the following code w/ rspec

 def index
   if params[:user_id]
     @user = User.find(params[:user_id])
     @messages = @user.messages
   end
 end

So basically what I'm doing is listing all the messages for a user,
provided there is an id parameter.

describe MessagesController, " handling GET /messages for a user" do

 before do
   @message = mock_model(Message)
   @message.stub!(:user_id).and_return(1)
   @user = mock_model(User)
   @user.stub!(:id).and_return(1)
   User.stub!(:messages).and_return([@message])
   User.stub!(:find).and_return([@user])
 end

 def do_get
   get :index, :user_id => 1
 end

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

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

 it "should find all messages" do
   User.should_receive(:messages).and_return([@message])
   do_get
 end

 it "should assign the found messages for the view" do
   do_get
   assigns[:messages].should == [@message]
 end
end


I'm trying to use the basic scaffold spec, but I'm absolutely clueless
on what the proper way to handle this is, I'm not even sure the proper
way I should mock the messages method, so it'll return a "stub?" of a
collection, or whatever the proper term is.

I'm sorry you have to deal with a newb, but if you could really help
me out I'd appreciate it a ton, thanks!

On 6/1/07, Jonathan Linowes <jonathan at parkerhill.com> wrote:
>
> I haven't thought it through (no pun intended) but maybe this could
> be simplified and generalized , like add a ".through" to the stub and/
> or should_receive
> ??
>
>
> On May 31, 2007, at 1:01 AM, Chris Anderson wrote:
>
> > I usually do something like this in my before(:each) section:
> >
> > User.stub!(:find).and_return(@u = mock_model(User, :posts => @pc =
> > mock('posts collection')))
> > @pc.stub(:find).and_return([@p = mock_model(Post)])
> >
> > with the corresponding should_receives in my various examples... the
> > trick is to mock the user's posts collection as its own object.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>


-- 
-Daniel Fischer

http://danielfischer.com - Geek Blog
http://abigfisch.com - Portfolio
http://writersbeat.com - Writing Community

From dylans at gmail.com  Fri Jun  1 19:30:19 2007
From: dylans at gmail.com (Dylan Stamat)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:30:19 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] redirect_to a relative path
Message-ID: <B09D2B00-1AF8-44C1-804B-48E7750827B1@gmail.com>

In a controller spec, doing something like:
response.redirect_url.should == omglolsrofls_path

... fails, as so:
expected "/omglolrofls", got "http://test.host/omglolrofls" (using ==)

You can see that the http://test.host is prepended to the path.
My controller is indeed redirecting to the omglolrofls path, and not  
the url.
Is this expected ?

Oh... and that's an arbitrary controller name if you were wondering ;)
Thanks !
==
Dylan

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sat Jun  2 09:25:19 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 09:25:19 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] redirect_to a relative path
In-Reply-To: <B09D2B00-1AF8-44C1-804B-48E7750827B1@gmail.com>
References: <B09D2B00-1AF8-44C1-804B-48E7750827B1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0706020625j355c2fe5gb78466c672948e46@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/07, Dylan Stamat <dylans at gmail.com> wrote:
> In a controller spec, doing something like:
> response.redirect_url.should == omglolsrofls_path
>
> ... fails, as so:
> expected "/omglolrofls", got "http://test.host/omglolrofls" (using ==)
>
> You can see that the http://test.host is prepended to the path.
> My controller is indeed redirecting to the omglolrofls path, and not
> the url.
> Is this expected ?

That's how it's doc'd
(http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rdoc-rails/classes/Spec/Rails/Matchers.html#M000014).
You can use omglolsrofls_url instead. If you think this should behave
differently, feel free to submit a feature request:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?group_id=797

Cheers (and welcome),
David

>
> Oh... and that's an arbitrary controller name if you were wondering ;)
> Thanks !
> ==
> Dylan
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From nick at ekenosen.net  Sat Jun  2 10:32:51 2007
From: nick at ekenosen.net (nicholas a. evans)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:32:51 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Another attempt for a succinct model validation
	DSL
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0706011501w6b48892ej654223495d956344@mail.gmail.com>
References: <276ff9870705311334t7dd388c8mf79fc6e7fa5aa695@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0705312200y274a4f43x966600bce6885d5a@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010734q601c018bvc82dc1196d9da00c@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010811s58a95c54x642296c18837fbee@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706010917h740ca9d4k20d543d7c11da8f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011002m37cdd8edof459546602c8a3cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011019n46e3471dy6c0a526de1e31318@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011116o714208f4yc8e7243af7b774bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011147q3e4449e0rcdf5ba06cff7c007@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0706011501w6b48892ej654223495d956344@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <276ff9870706020732y511e93aahd50b0fad62969fda@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well now we're getting much simpler. Instead of a whole new structure,
> why not just use a custom matcher?
>
> http://pastie.caboo.se/67069

I agree, simpler is better.  I intend to start off with just the
matcher, and then move towards a shortcut syntax.

My nitpick with only doing a matcher and not doing some extras as
well: it's still too verbose for my taste.  For example, I'll be
saying "as(:foo)" for every single example within a behavior, or
wrapping it inside some examples_array.each loops will feel a bit
clunky.  The whole point was to cut away as much of the noise as
possible, and focus only on the examples (and occasionally, the error
messages).

At any rate, I just put together my first draft implementation
(developed spec-first).  It still doesn't check the error messages
yet, and it's only handling single fields at the moment, but I'll do
those after I get home from the market.  After that I'll figure out
how to get it working with my desired "shortcut" syntax.  Then I'll
package it up all nicely for anyone to use... it's all in one file at
the moment, so if you are looking to see the syntax that it enables,
you'll have to scroll down to line 109.  ;-)

http://pastie.caboo.se/67222

I've included the output from "spec -f s" in the pastie.

-- 
Nick

From jonathan at parkerhill.com  Sat Jun  2 15:09:31 2007
From: jonathan at parkerhill.com (Jonathan Linowes)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 15:09:31 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] I'm really bad at controllers, help please.
In-Reply-To: <7e565b5c0706020127m121fc734o10dc9b6cd763e635@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7e565b5c0706020127m121fc734o10dc9b6cd763e635@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1BA71784-13D3-4086-9D71-0E46D43D8AE9@parkerhill.com>

I'm nearly as new at this as you are I'm I'm just figuring things out  
myself too.

I think your problem is method :messages is being called on an  
instance of User, not the class, so you need

@user.stub!(:messages).and_return([@message])

here's some clues to how I've gotten similar things working
To diagnose problems with my examples, I
- watch the test.log file. You could use 'tail' or on mac use the  
'console' utility
- use the -e option in spec to run one example at a time. I copy/ 
paste the test name from the terminal window to avoid a lot of typing
- sometimes I comment out code in my app methods to limit what its  
actually doing and then add one line at a time to "re-develop" the  
method
- similarly I may create an extra test method in my controller or  
model to isolate things I dont understand between the spec and the code.

I also tend to use should_receive rather than stubs, it provides more  
details (although seems to make the tests more brittle)

thus,

# separate for reuse with multiple describe cases
def setup_messages do
   @user = mock_model(User)
   @message = mock_model(Message)
   @messages = [@message]
end

def before(:each) do
   setup_messages
   User.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@user)
   @user.should_receive(:messages).and_return(@messages)
end

def do_get
   get :index, :user_id => 1
end

it "should find all messages" do
   do_get
   assigns[:messages].should == @messages
end

I think this is right. Please let me know
:)


On Jun 2, 2007, at 4:27 AM, Fischer, Daniel wrote:

> Hey,
>
> Sorry for so many questions - I'm really bad at this right now.
>
> I'm trying to cover the following code w/ rspec
>
>   def index
>     if params[:user_id]
>       @user = User.find(params[:user_id])
>       @messages = @user.messages
>     end
>   end
>
> So basically what I'm doing is listing all the messages for a user,
> provided there is an id parameter.
>
> describe MessagesController, " handling GET /messages for a user" do
>
>   before do
>     @message = mock_model(Message)
>     @message.stub!(:user_id).and_return(1)
>     @user = mock_model(User)
>     @user.stub!(:id).and_return(1)
>     User.stub!(:messages).and_return([@message])
>     User.stub!(:find).and_return([@user])
>   end
>
>   def do_get
>     get :index, :user_id => 1
>   end
>
>   it "should be successful" do
>     do_get
>     response.should be_success
>   end
>
>   it "should render index template" do
>     do_get
>     response.should render_template('index')
>   end
>
>   it "should find all messages" do
>     User.should_receive(:messages).and_return([@message])
>     do_get
>   end
>
>   it "should assign the found messages for the view" do
>     do_get
>     assigns[:messages].should == [@message]
>   end
> end
>
>
> I'm trying to use the basic scaffold spec, but I'm absolutely clueless
> on what the proper way to handle this is, I'm not even sure the proper
> way I should mock the messages method, so it'll return a "stub?" of a
> collection, or whatever the proper term is.
>
> I'm sorry you have to deal with a newb, but if you could really help
> me out I'd appreciate it a ton, thanks!
> -- 
> -Daniel Fischer
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From jonathan at parkerhill.com  Sat Jun  2 23:17:01 2007
From: jonathan at parkerhill.com (Jonathan Linowes)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 23:17:01 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] should_receive.again
Message-ID: <9E413F4D-CAB0-445C-9A9C-28B11EAE3343@parkerhill.com>

Hi,

It appears that if I have 2 should_receives in a row, the latest one  
overrides the previous one(s).

If there isn't one, could we add a way to accumulate them, such as

@thing.should_receive(:method).and_return(@value)
@thing.should_receive(:method).again.and_return(@value)
@thing.should_receive(:method).again.and_return(@value)

would be equivalent to

@thing.should_receive(:method).times(3).and_return(@value)

This would be helpful because I have a setup method that sets up the  
should_receive once, and then some specific actions may use that  
method one or more additional times.

thanks
linoj



From jonathan at parkerhill.com  Sat Jun  2 23:48:11 2007
From: jonathan at parkerhill.com (Jonathan Linowes)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 23:48:11 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] I'm really bad at controllers, help please.
In-Reply-To: <1BA71784-13D3-4086-9D71-0E46D43D8AE9@parkerhill.com>
References: <7e565b5c0706020127m121fc734o10dc9b6cd763e635@mail.gmail.com>
	<1BA71784-13D3-4086-9D71-0E46D43D8AE9@parkerhill.com>
Message-ID: <581CFB5F-3C4A-4383-9E3E-74D609D1B177@parkerhill.com>

fyi, i'm finding the should_receive(:messages) to be too brittle  
because any time I add a call like @user.messages.find or whatever it  
breaks my spec (requiring I do .twice or .times(N) . IMO the spec  
shouldn't be so sensitive to implementation of the behavior, so i'm  
now stubbing the association

replaced
	@user.should_receive(:messages).and_return(@messages)
with
	@user.stub!(:messages).and_return(@messages)



On Jun 2, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Jonathan Linowes wrote:

> I'm nearly as new at this as you are I'm I'm just figuring things out
> myself too.
>
> I think your problem is method :messages is being called on an
> instance of User, not the class, so you need
>
> @user.stub!(:messages).and_return([@message])
>
> here's some clues to how I've gotten similar things working
> To diagnose problems with my examples, I
> - watch the test.log file. You could use 'tail' or on mac use the
> 'console' utility
> - use the -e option in spec to run one example at a time. I copy/
> paste the test name from the terminal window to avoid a lot of typing
> - sometimes I comment out code in my app methods to limit what its
> actually doing and then add one line at a time to "re-develop" the
> method
> - similarly I may create an extra test method in my controller or
> model to isolate things I dont understand between the spec and the  
> code.
>
> I also tend to use should_receive rather than stubs, it provides more
> details (although seems to make the tests more brittle)
>
> thus,
>
> # separate for reuse with multiple describe cases
> def setup_messages do
>    @user = mock_model(User)
>    @message = mock_model(Message)
>    @messages = [@message]
> end
>
> def before(:each) do
>    setup_messages
>    User.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@user)
>    @user.should_receive(:messages).and_return(@messages)
> end
>
> def do_get
>    get :index, :user_id => 1
> end
>
> it "should find all messages" do
>    do_get
>    assigns[:messages].should == @messages
> end
>
> I think this is right. Please let me know
> :)
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2007, at 4:27 AM, Fischer, Daniel wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>>
>> Sorry for so many questions - I'm really bad at this right now.
>>
>> I'm trying to cover the following code w/ rspec
>>
>>   def index
>>     if params[:user_id]
>>       @user = User.find(params[:user_id])
>>       @messages = @user.messages
>>     end
>>   end
>>
>> So basically what I'm doing is listing all the messages for a user,
>> provided there is an id parameter.
>>
>> describe MessagesController, " handling GET /messages for a user" do
>>
>>   before do
>>     @message = mock_model(Message)
>>     @message.stub!(:user_id).and_return(1)
>>     @user = mock_model(User)
>>     @user.stub!(:id).and_return(1)
>>     User.stub!(:messages).and_return([@message])
>>     User.stub!(:find).and_return([@user])
>>   end
>>
>>   def do_get
>>     get :index, :user_id => 1
>>   end
>>
>>   it "should be successful" do
>>     do_get
>>     response.should be_success
>>   end
>>
>>   it "should render index template" do
>>     do_get
>>     response.should render_template('index')
>>   end
>>
>>   it "should find all messages" do
>>     User.should_receive(:messages).and_return([@message])
>>     do_get
>>   end
>>
>>   it "should assign the found messages for the view" do
>>     do_get
>>     assigns[:messages].should == [@message]
>>   end
>> end
>>
>>
>> I'm trying to use the basic scaffold spec, but I'm absolutely  
>> clueless
>> on what the proper way to handle this is, I'm not even sure the  
>> proper
>> way I should mock the messages method, so it'll return a "stub?" of a
>> collection, or whatever the proper term is.
>>
>> I'm sorry you have to deal with a newb, but if you could really help
>> me out I'd appreciate it a ton, thanks!
>> -- 
>> -Daniel Fischer
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com  Sun Jun  3 06:21:18 2007
From: aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com (aslak hellesoy)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 12:21:18 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] should_receive.again
In-Reply-To: <9E413F4D-CAB0-445C-9A9C-28B11EAE3343@parkerhill.com>
References: <9E413F4D-CAB0-445C-9A9C-28B11EAE3343@parkerhill.com>
Message-ID: <8d961d900706030321l2d5e1d5an953b06ddb40cd721@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/3/07, Jonathan Linowes <jonathan at parkerhill.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It appears that if I have 2 should_receives in a row, the latest one
> overrides the previous one(s).
>
> If there isn't one, could we add a way to accumulate them, such as
>
> @thing.should_receive(:method).and_return(@value)
> @thing.should_receive(:method).again.and_return(@value)
> @thing.should_receive(:method).again.and_return(@value)
>
> would be equivalent to
>
> @thing.should_receive(:method).times(3).and_return(@value)
>
> This would be helpful because I have a setup method that sets up the
> should_receive once, and then some specific actions may use that
> method one or more additional times.
>

@thing.should_receive(:method).exactly(3).times.and_return(@value)
http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rdoc/classes/Spec/Mocks.html

Aslak

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

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sun Jun  3 09:02:37 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 08:02:37 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] I'm really bad at controllers, help please.
In-Reply-To: <581CFB5F-3C4A-4383-9E3E-74D609D1B177@parkerhill.com>
References: <7e565b5c0706020127m121fc734o10dc9b6cd763e635@mail.gmail.com>
	<1BA71784-13D3-4086-9D71-0E46D43D8AE9@parkerhill.com>
	<581CFB5F-3C4A-4383-9E3E-74D609D1B177@parkerhill.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0706030602k69f41fe3t910475947884762d@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/2/07, Jonathan Linowes <jonathan at parkerhill.com> wrote:
> fyi, i'm finding the should_receive(:messages) to be too brittle
> because any time I add a call like @user.messages.find or whatever it
> breaks my spec (requiring I do .twice or .times(N) . IMO the spec
> shouldn't be so sensitive to implementation of the behavior, so i'm
> now stubbing the association
>
> replaced
>         @user.should_receive(:messages).and_return(@messages)
> with
>         @user.stub!(:messages).and_return(@messages)


FYI - this:

  @user.stub!(:messages).and_return(@messages)

functions in the same way as this:

  @user.should_receive(:messages).any_number_of_times.and_return(@messages)

So you can alleviate the brittleness using should_receive. It's more
verbose, BUT, the important thing is your intention. Stubs and mocks
mean different things.

http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/articles/2006/11/09/tutorial-rspec-stubs-and-mocks

Cheers,
David

>
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Jonathan Linowes wrote:
>
> > I'm nearly as new at this as you are I'm I'm just figuring things out
> > myself too.
> >
> > I think your problem is method :messages is being called on an
> > instance of User, not the class, so you need
> >
> > @user.stub!(:messages).and_return([@message])
> >
> > here's some clues to how I've gotten similar things working
> > To diagnose problems with my examples, I
> > - watch the test.log file. You could use 'tail' or on mac use the
> > 'console' utility
> > - use the -e option in spec to run one example at a time. I copy/
> > paste the test name from the terminal window to avoid a lot of typing
> > - sometimes I comment out code in my app methods to limit what its
> > actually doing and then add one line at a time to "re-develop" the
> > method
> > - similarly I may create an extra test method in my controller or
> > model to isolate things I dont understand between the spec and the
> > code.
> >
> > I also tend to use should_receive rather than stubs, it provides more
> > details (although seems to make the tests more brittle)
> >
> > thus,
> >
> > # separate for reuse with multiple describe cases
> > def setup_messages do
> >    @user = mock_model(User)
> >    @message = mock_model(Message)
> >    @messages = [@message]
> > end
> >
> > def before(:each) do
> >    setup_messages
> >    User.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@user)
> >    @user.should_receive(:messages).and_return(@messages)
> > end
> >
> > def do_get
> >    get :index, :user_id => 1
> > end
> >
> > it "should find all messages" do
> >    do_get
> >    assigns[:messages].should == @messages
> > end
> >
> > I think this is right. Please let me know
> > :)
> >
> >
> > On Jun 2, 2007, at 4:27 AM, Fischer, Daniel wrote:
> >
> >> Hey,
> >>
> >> Sorry for so many questions - I'm really bad at this right now.
> >>
> >> I'm trying to cover the following code w/ rspec
> >>
> >>   def index
> >>     if params[:user_id]
> >>       @user = User.find(params[:user_id])
> >>       @messages = @user.messages
> >>     end
> >>   end
> >>
> >> So basically what I'm doing is listing all the messages for a user,
> >> provided there is an id parameter.
> >>
> >> describe MessagesController, " handling GET /messages for a user" do
> >>
> >>   before do
> >>     @message = mock_model(Message)
> >>     @message.stub!(:user_id).and_return(1)
> >>     @user = mock_model(User)
> >>     @user.stub!(:id).and_return(1)
> >>     User.stub!(:messages).and_return([@message])
> >>     User.stub!(:find).and_return([@user])
> >>   end
> >>
> >>   def do_get
> >>     get :index, :user_id => 1
> >>   end
> >>
> >>   it "should be successful" do
> >>     do_get
> >>     response.should be_success
> >>   end
> >>
> >>   it "should render index template" do
> >>     do_get
> >>     response.should render_template('index')
> >>   end
> >>
> >>   it "should find all messages" do
> >>     User.should_receive(:messages).and_return([@message])
> >>     do_get
> >>   end
> >>
> >>   it "should assign the found messages for the view" do
> >>     do_get
> >>     assigns[:messages].should == [@message]
> >>   end
> >> end
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm trying to use the basic scaffold spec, but I'm absolutely
> >> clueless
> >> on what the proper way to handle this is, I'm not even sure the
> >> proper
> >> way I should mock the messages method, so it'll return a "stub?" of a
> >> collection, or whatever the proper term is.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry you have to deal with a newb, but if you could really help
> >> me out I'd appreciate it a ton, thanks!
> >> --
> >> -Daniel Fischer
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 martin.emde at gmail.com  Sun Jun  3 15:07:21 2007
From: martin.emde at gmail.com (Martin Emde)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 13:07:21 -0600
Subject: [rspec-users] Could anyone please help with rspec/nested
	resource behavior checking?
In-Reply-To: <7e565b5c0706020131p11d0390didc67fb1eacf1d0ee@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7e565b5c0705301703w334c3e2dg3f05d734ed76cd5a@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D95C70C-B551-43D3-AE07-5E7FFD9C5B74@parkerhill.com>
	<7e565b5c0705301807o42711e51w555ace5e8c037c84@mail.gmail.com>
	<e282921e0705302201l3c77a951y97234f639adeeeee@mail.gmail.com>
	<84AC7EEA-6A4E-44B8-B2AD-D41CE5FF4488@parkerhill.com>
	<7e565b5c0706020131p11d0390didc67fb1eacf1d0ee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <145359ad0706031207w1e0ba44ajd77d6b3bc54070d2@mail.gmail.com>

Here is the correct spec for this index action:

def index
if params[:user_id]
@user = User.find(params[:user_id])
@messages = @user.messages
end
end

describe MessagesController, " handling GET /messages for a user" do
before do
   @user = mock_model(User)
   @messages = mock("messages")
   @user.stub!(:messages).and_return(@messages)
   User.stub!(:find).and_return(@user)
end

def do_get
   get :index, :user_id => 1
end

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

it "should find user with params[:user_id]" do
   User.should_receive(:find).with(1).and_return(@user)
   do_get
end

it "should get user's messages" do
   @user.should_receive(:messages).and_return(@messages)
   do_get
end

it "should assign the found messages for the view" do
   do_get
   assigns[:messages].should be(@messages)
end
end


Hope that helps you out.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070603/011115a7/attachment.html 

From dchelimsky at gmail.com  Sun Jun  3 15:55:50 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 14:55:50 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Specs for ApplicationController,
	where to put them?
In-Reply-To: <C109CDF1-163D-47AE-9BC9-2235DA414C92@digitalphenom.com>
References: <2D69A175-3C2A-4E38-A006-68695DF3E359@wincent.com>
	<C96F2DFF-CAE4-4530-BC53-5A83A00F206E@toolmantim.com>
	<050EF0F7-7EE3-4995-AFE3-0FD735F98167@digitalphenom.com>
	<583D179D-743C-49BB-9CFA-B31AF11C71E2@digitalphenom.com>
	<57c63afe0705291652r2bb1ea05o29ed4b4ec96e29ed@mail.gmail.com>
	<C109CDF1-163D-47AE-9BC9-2235DA414C92@digitalphenom.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0706031255g4f96cf7h1263e4b067167b26@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/1/07, Anthony Carlos <anthony at digitalphenom.com> wrote:
>
> On May 29, 2007, at 7:52 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> >> My problem now, is that I get a nil object error. Specifically, in
> >> application.rb, I'm trying to call request.parameters and request is
> >> nil. It seems that request is not part of the context anymore since I
> >> moved the behavior out to a separate file. How do I regain access to
> >> request, response, assigns, flash, and session?
> >
> > The fact that the shared examples are in another file should have no
> > bearing on whether they have runtime access to whatever is in the
> > behaviours that include them. This all sounds odd to me. Can you post
> > a backtrace please?
>
> David:
>
> Here's the output from rake spec:autotest:
>
> :
> QuestionnairesController
> - should flash notice when session[:current_user_id] does not exist
> (ERROR - 1)
> - should return true when session[:current_user_id] exists
> - should respond to current_user
> - should respond to authenticate
>
> 1)
> NoMethodError in 'QuestionnairesController should flash notice when
> session[:current_user_id] does not exist'
> You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> The error occurred while evaluating nil.parameters
> /Users/aec/ror/aca/aca_trunk/config/../app/controllers/application.rb:
> 11:in `authenticate'
> ./spec/controllers/application_controller_spec.rb:24:
>
> =====
> Here's application_controller_spec.rb:
> require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper'
>
> unless Spec::DSL::Behaviour.find_shared_behaviour("All controllers")
>    describe "All controllers", :shared => true do
>      it "should respond to authenticate" do
>        controller.should respond_to(:authenticate)
>      end
>      it "should respond to current_user" do
>        controller.should respond_to(:current_user)
>      end
>      it "should return true when session[:current_user_id] exists" do
>        session[:current_user_id] = 12345
>        controller.authenticate.should == true
>      end
>      it "should flash notice when session[:current_user_id] does not
> exist" do
>        session[:current_user_id] = nil
>        controller.authenticate # <=====  This is line 24 where the
> error occurs!
>        flash[:notice].should == 'Please login.'
>      end
>    end
> end
>
> =====
> Here's application.rb:
> class ApplicationController < ActionController::Base
>    # Pick a unique cookie name to distinguish our session data from
> others'
>    session :session_key => '_unique_session_id'
>
>    def authenticate
>      unless session[:current_user_id]
>        flash[:notice] = 'Please login.'
>        session[:jumpto] = request.parameters # <===== This is line 11
> where nil.parameters is called!
>        redirect_to(:controller => 'ums', :action => 'login')
>      end
>      true
>    end
>
>    def current_user
>      @current_user = User.find(session[:current_user_id])
>    end
> end
>
> =====
> Finally, here's questionnaires_controller_spec.rb:
> require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper'
> require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/application_controller_spec'
> unless Spec::DSL::Behaviour.find_shared_behaviour("All controllers")
>
> describe QuestionnairesController do
>    it_should_behave_like "All controllers"
> end
> :
>
> =====
> So as far as I can tell, my QuestionnairesController should behave
> like "All controllers" which puts us at
> application_controller_spec.rb. The first 3 examples pass, but the
> fourth, which calls ApplicationController.authenticate, gives me the
> nil object. But, isn't request an object that is always available to
> controllers?
>
> Wait a second...
>
> There's no get or post command here! Maybe thats why request is nil?
> I think so. Never mind! Sorry about the false alarm. I don't want to
> be the boy who cried wolf.
>
> On the other hand, I think I avoided using get or post because this
> is an abstract action that gets called by other concrete classes. So
> how does one test logic in an abstract class?

This question inspired me to write this blog post:

http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/articles/2007/06/03/oxymoron-testing-behaviour-of-abstractions

Feel free to comment directly on the blog.

Cheers,
David

> Smells like a job for a
> mock, of course?!? I'll look over the list archive-- I think other
> people have asked this question before.
>
> Thanks for helping out the slow learners,
>
> -Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From nick at ekenosen.net  Sun Jun  3 22:19:54 2007
From: nick at ekenosen.net (nicholas a. evans)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 22:19:54 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] should_receive.again
In-Reply-To: <8d961d900706030321l2d5e1d5an953b06ddb40cd721@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9E413F4D-CAB0-445C-9A9C-28B11EAE3343@parkerhill.com>
	<8d961d900706030321l2d5e1d5an953b06ddb40cd721@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <276ff9870706031919g76913dbdm4a0676b1fd714148@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/3/07, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/3/07, Jonathan Linowes <jonathan at parkerhill.com> wrote:
> > This would be helpful because I have a setup method that sets up the
> > should_receive once, and then some specific actions may use that
> > method one or more additional times.
>
> @thing.should_receive(:method).exactly(3).times.and_return(@value)
> http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rdoc/classes/Spec/Mocks.html

You might also consider simply stubbing the method in your setup, and
only specifying a number of times called in specific examples.
Whenever reasonable, I try to follow the advice given by David
Chelimsky and aim for no mock expectations in the setup and only one
per example: http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/articles/2006/11/09/tutorial-rspec-stubs-and-mocks

Also, you might want to think about whether or not you really should
be locking down your specification to exactly three (or however many)
calls.  Without knowing your details I can't say for certain if this
applies to you, but often the exact number of calls is an
implementation detail that your spec doesn't need to worry about.  If
that's the case, I might loosen up the mock expectation a little bit
by simply saying
@thing.should_receive(:method).at_least(:once).and_return(@value)

-- 
Nick

From nick at ekenosen.net  Sun Jun  3 22:52:04 2007
From: nick at ekenosen.net (nicholas a. evans)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 22:52:04 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Another attempt for a succinct model validation
	DSL
In-Reply-To: <276ff9870706020732y511e93aahd50b0fad62969fda@mail.gmail.com>
References: <276ff9870705311334t7dd388c8mf79fc6e7fa5aa695@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010734q601c018bvc82dc1196d9da00c@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010811s58a95c54x642296c18837fbee@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706010917h740ca9d4k20d543d7c11da8f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011002m37cdd8edof459546602c8a3cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011019n46e3471dy6c0a526de1e31318@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011116o714208f4yc8e7243af7b774bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011147q3e4449e0rcdf5ba06cff7c007@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0706011501w6b48892ej654223495d956344@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706020732y511e93aahd50b0fad62969fda@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <276ff9870706031952n67e5507clb22837e1da1cc3bb@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/2/07, nicholas a. evans <nick at ekenosen.net> wrote:
> At any rate, I just put together my first draft implementation
> (developed spec-first).  It still doesn't check the error messages
> yet, and it's only handling single fields at the moment, but I'll do
> those after I get home from the market.  After that I'll figure out
> how to get it working with my desired "shortcut" syntax.

So I haven't gotten around to my preferred shortcut syntax yet, but I
did add support to check for error messages and handle multiple
fields, so it should be quite usable now.  I took the approach that
when specifying single field validations it only checks for errors on
that field, but when specifying multi-field validations it checks for
any errors on the object.  That felt like simplest and least
surprising solution to me.  My specs assume that you can use sqlite3
(to do an in-memory DB).

http://svn.ekenosen.net/public/rspec_validation_matcher/

http://pastie.caboo.se/67509 shows what it currently can do, as well
as my current thoughts on how I would *really* like to be doing this.
I'm eager to hear any comments on it.  :-)

-- 
Nick

From anthony at digitalphenom.com  Sun Jun  3 23:44:54 2007
From: anthony at digitalphenom.com (Anthony Carlos)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 23:44:54 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Could anyone please help with rspec/nested
	resource behavior checking?
In-Reply-To: <7e565b5c0706020131p11d0390didc67fb1eacf1d0ee@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7e565b5c0705301703w334c3e2dg3f05d734ed76cd5a@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D95C70C-B551-43D3-AE07-5E7FFD9C5B74@parkerhill.com>
	<7e565b5c0705301807o42711e51w555ace5e8c037c84@mail.gmail.com>
	<e282921e0705302201l3c77a951y97234f639adeeeee@mail.gmail.com>
	<84AC7EEA-6A4E-44B8-B2AD-D41CE5FF4488@parkerhill.com>
	<7e565b5c0706020131p11d0390didc67fb1eacf1d0ee@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56384D1F-D586-4126-B7CE-50E36F79434E@digitalphenom.com>

Daniel,

Which of these examples is failing? Or, are you asking a more general  
question about how to use a mock or a stub? I'm going through my own  
pains trying to learn this stuff, so my perspective might be close to  
yours! Please scroll down; I have a couple of in-line questions for ya!

On Jun 2, 2007, at 4:31 AM, Fischer, Daniel wrote:

> Jonathon,
>
> Not sure - I don't really know what to do at this point, but I have a
> new problem again lol.
>
> Anyway, I can't seem to create new mailing messages? I guess I ask  
> to many...
>
> Well, forgive me - but I'll just attach it here since I can't make  
> a new one.
>
> Hey,
>
> Sorry for so many questions - I'm really bad at this right now.
>
> I'm trying to cover the following code w/ rspec
>
>  def index
>    if params[:user_id]
>      @user = User.find(params[:user_id])
>      @messages = @user.messages
>    end
>  end
>
> So basically what I'm doing is listing all the messages for a user,
> provided there is an id parameter.
>
> describe MessagesController, " handling GET /messages for a user" do
>
>  before do
>    @message = mock_model(Message)
>    @message.stub!(:user_id).and_return(1)
>    @user = mock_model(User)
>    @user.stub!(:id).and_return(1)
>    User.stub!(:messages).and_return([@message])
>    User.stub!(:find).and_return([@user])
>  end
>
>  def do_get
>    get :index, :user_id => 1
>  end
>
>  it "should be successful" do
>    do_get
>    response.should be_success
>  end
>
>  it "should render index template" do
>    do_get
>    response.should render_template('index')
>  end
>
>  it "should find all messages" do
>    User.should_receive(:messages).and_return([@message])
>    do_get
>  end
>
>  it "should assign the found messages for the view" do
>    do_get
>    assigns[:messages].should == [@message]
>  end
> end
>
>
> I'm trying to use the basic scaffold spec, but I'm absolutely clueless
> on what the proper way to handle this is, I'm not even sure the proper
> way I should mock the messages method, so it'll return a "stub?" of a
> collection, or whatever the proper term is.
>

Can you tell me where you found the basic scaffold spec? I haven't  
seen it yet. I've been learning by studying the docs from the rspec  
site.

Are you having a problem ensuring that the @messages variable in your  
controller has an array of messages after a GET?

I think I can explain the use of a stub or mock if this is really  
your question.

Thanks,

-Anthony




From jonathan at parkerhill.com  Sun Jun  3 23:47:59 2007
From: jonathan at parkerhill.com (Jonathan Linowes)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 23:47:59 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] should_receive.again
In-Reply-To: <276ff9870706031919g76913dbdm4a0676b1fd714148@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9E413F4D-CAB0-445C-9A9C-28B11EAE3343@parkerhill.com>
	<8d961d900706030321l2d5e1d5an953b06ddb40cd721@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706031919g76913dbdm4a0676b1fd714148@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <260A5104-9CE8-4A2A-B155-1E20919FB733@parkerhill.com>

The issue was the number of calls. I really only want to count the  
number of calls by the specific action.
But there's a before filter which calls the same method.
I couldn't stub out the before filter itself because it sets an  
instance variable used by the action.
Does that make sense?
So my example has to know more about the implementation than I would  
like.

On Jun 3, 2007, at 10:19 PM, nicholas a. evans wrote:

> On 6/3/07, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/3/07, Jonathan Linowes <jonathan at parkerhill.com> wrote:
>>> This would be helpful because I have a setup method that sets up the
>>> should_receive once, and then some specific actions may use that
>>> method one or more additional times.
>>
>> @thing.should_receive(:method).exactly(3).times.and_return(@value)
>> http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rdoc/classes/Spec/Mocks.html
>
> You might also consider simply stubbing the method in your setup, and
> only specifying a number of times called in specific examples.
> Whenever reasonable, I try to follow the advice given by David
> Chelimsky and aim for no mock expectations in the setup and only one
> per example: http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/articles/2006/11/09/ 
> tutorial-rspec-stubs-and-mocks
>
> Also, you might want to think about whether or not you really should
> be locking down your specification to exactly three (or however many)
> calls.  Without knowing your details I can't say for certain if this
> applies to you, but often the exact number of calls is an
> implementation detail that your spec doesn't need to worry about.  If
> that's the case, I might loosen up the mock expectation a little bit
> by simply saying
> @thing.should_receive(:method).at_least(:once).and_return(@value)
>
> -- 
> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


From anthony at digitalphenom.com  Mon Jun  4 00:10:06 2007
From: anthony at digitalphenom.com (Anthony Carlos)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 00:10:06 -0400
Subject: [rspec-users] Specs for ApplicationController,
	where to put them?
In-Reply-To: <57c63afe0706031255g4f96cf7h1263e4b067167b26@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2D69A175-3C2A-4E38-A006-68695DF3E359@wincent.com>
	<C96F2DFF-CAE4-4530-BC53-5A83A00F206E@toolmantim.com>
	<050EF0F7-7EE3-4995-AFE3-0FD735F98167@digitalphenom.com>
	<583D179D-743C-49BB-9CFA-B31AF11C71E2@digitalphenom.com>
	<57c63afe0705291652r2bb1ea05o29ed4b4ec96e29ed@mail.gmail.com>
	<C109CDF1-163D-47AE-9BC9-2235DA414C92@digitalphenom.com>
	<57c63afe0706031255g4f96cf7h1263e4b067167b26@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <646A1FE4-73D2-42D4-B853-DEAEA8528D70@digitalphenom.com>

David:

I could have had a V8?!?!

(For the young, that's a reference to the commercial for V8 fruit and  
vegetable juice where the actor slaps himself in the forehead wishing  
he drank the delicious and nutritious beverage instead of some other  
more stupid beverage choice).

Thanks for the unbelievably clear explanation. I will comment on your  
blog.

-Anthony

On Jun 3, 2007, at 3:55 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:

> On 6/1/07, Anthony Carlos <anthony at digitalphenom.com> wrote:
>>
>> On May 29, 2007, at 7:52 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>>>> My problem now, is that I get a nil object error. Specifically, in
>>>> application.rb, I'm trying to call request.parameters and  
>>>> request is
>>>> nil. It seems that request is not part of the context anymore  
>>>> since I
>>>> moved the behavior out to a separate file. How do I regain  
>>>> access to
>>>> request, response, assigns, flash, and session?
>>>
>>> The fact that the shared examples are in another file should have no
>>> bearing on whether they have runtime access to whatever is in the
>>> behaviours that include them. This all sounds odd to me. Can you  
>>> post
>>> a backtrace please?
>>
>> David:
>>
>> Here's the output from rake spec:autotest:
>>
>> :
>> QuestionnairesController
>> - should flash notice when session[:current_user_id] does not exist
>> (ERROR - 1)
>> - should return true when session[:current_user_id] exists
>> - should respond to current_user
>> - should respond to authenticate
>>
>> 1)
>> NoMethodError in 'QuestionnairesController should flash notice when
>> session[:current_user_id] does not exist'
>> You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
>> The error occurred while evaluating nil.parameters
>> /Users/aec/ror/aca/aca_trunk/config/../app/controllers/ 
>> application.rb:
>> 11:in `authenticate'
>> ./spec/controllers/application_controller_spec.rb:24:
>>
>> =====
>> Here's application_controller_spec.rb:
>> require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper'
>>
>> unless Spec::DSL::Behaviour.find_shared_behaviour("All controllers")
>>    describe "All controllers", :shared => true do
>>      it "should respond to authenticate" do
>>        controller.should respond_to(:authenticate)
>>      end
>>      it "should respond to current_user" do
>>        controller.should respond_to(:current_user)
>>      end
>>      it "should return true when session[:current_user_id] exists" do
>>        session[:current_user_id] = 12345
>>        controller.authenticate.should == true
>>      end
>>      it "should flash notice when session[:current_user_id] does not
>> exist" do
>>        session[:current_user_id] = nil
>>        controller.authenticate # <=====  This is line 24 where the
>> error occurs!
>>        flash[:notice].should == 'Please login.'
>>      end
>>    end
>> end
>>
>> =====
>> Here's application.rb:
>> class ApplicationController < ActionController::Base
>>    # Pick a unique cookie name to distinguish our session data from
>> others'
>>    session :session_key => '_unique_session_id'
>>
>>    def authenticate
>>      unless session[:current_user_id]
>>        flash[:notice] = 'Please login.'
>>        session[:jumpto] = request.parameters # <===== This is line 11
>> where nil.parameters is called!
>>        redirect_to(:controller => 'ums', :action => 'login')
>>      end
>>      true
>>    end
>>
>>    def current_user
>>      @current_user = User.find(session[:current_user_id])
>>    end
>> end
>>
>> =====
>> Finally, here's questionnaires_controller_spec.rb:
>> require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper'
>> require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/application_controller_spec'
>> unless Spec::DSL::Behaviour.find_shared_behaviour("All controllers")
>>
>> describe QuestionnairesController do
>>    it_should_behave_like "All controllers"
>> end
>> :
>>
>> =====
>> So as far as I can tell, my QuestionnairesController should behave
>> like "All controllers" which puts us at
>> application_controller_spec.rb. The first 3 examples pass, but the
>> fourth, which calls ApplicationController.authenticate, gives me the
>> nil object. But, isn't request an object that is always available to
>> controllers?
>>
>> Wait a second...
>>
>> There's no get or post command here! Maybe thats why request is nil?
>> I think so. Never mind! Sorry about the false alarm. I don't want to
>> be the boy who cried wolf.
>>
>> On the other hand, I think I avoided using get or post because this
>> is an abstract action that gets called by other concrete classes. So
>> how does one test logic in an abstract class?
>
> This question inspired me to write this blog post:
>
> http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/articles/2007/06/03/oxymoron-testing- 
> behaviour-of-abstractions
>
> Feel free to comment directly on the blog.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>> Smells like a job for a
>> mock, of course?!? I'll look over the list archive-- I think other
>> people have asked this question before.
>>
>> Thanks for helping out the slow learners,
>>
>> -Anthony
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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  Mon Jun  4 00:36:10 2007
From: dchelimsky at gmail.com (David Chelimsky)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 23:36:10 -0500
Subject: [rspec-users] Another attempt for a succinct model validation
	DSL
In-Reply-To: <276ff9870706031952n67e5507clb22837e1da1cc3bb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <276ff9870705311334t7dd388c8mf79fc6e7fa5aa695@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706010811s58a95c54x642296c18837fbee@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706010917h740ca9d4k20d543d7c11da8f8@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011002m37cdd8edof459546602c8a3cd@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011019n46e3471dy6c0a526de1e31318@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706011116o714208f4yc8e7243af7b774bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<167b6aa00706011147q3e4449e0rcdf5ba06cff7c007@mail.gmail.com>
	<57c63afe0706011501w6b48892ej654223495d956344@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706020732y511e93aahd50b0fad62969fda@mail.gmail.com>
	<276ff9870706031952n67e5507clb22837e1da1cc3bb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57c63afe0706032136s1af39b1bq619714f7ef33bbe9@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/3/07, nicholas a. evans <nick at ekenosen.net> wrote:
> On 6/2/07, nicholas a. evans <nick at ekenosen.net> wrote:
> > At any rate, I just put together my first draft implementation
> > (developed spec-first).  It still doesn't check the error messages
> > yet, and it's only handling single fields at the moment, but I'll do
> > those after I get home from the market.  After that I'll figure out
> > how to get it working with my desired "shortcut" syntax.
>
> So I haven't gotten around to my preferred shortcut syntax yet, but I
> did add support to check for error messages and handle multiple
> fields, so it should be quite usable now.  I took the approach that
> when specifying single field validations it only checks for errors on
> that field, but when specifying multi-field validations it checks for
> any errors on the object.  That felt like simplest and least
> surprising solution to me.  My specs assume that you can use sqlite3
> (to do an in-memory DB).
>
> http://svn.ekenosen.net/public/rspec_validation_matcher/
>
> http://pastie.caboo.se/67509 shows what it currently can do, as well
> as my current thoughts on how I would *really* like to be doing this.
> I'm eager to hear any comments on it.  :-)

Personally, I think @person.should accept("Danny", "Elfman")

;)

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

From daniel at danielfischer.com  Mon Jun  4 04:16:45 2007
From: daniel at danielfischer.com (Fischer, Daniel)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 01:16:45 -0700
Subject: [rspec-users] I'm really bad at controllers, help please.
In-Reply-To: <581CFB5F-3C4A-4383-9E3E-74D609D1B177@parkerhill.com>
References: <7e565b5c0706020127m121fc734o10dc9b6cd763e635@mail.gmail.com>
	<1BA71784-13D3-4086-9D71-0E46D43D8AE9@parkerhill.com>
	<581CFB5F-3C4A-4383-9E3E-74D609D1B177@parkerhill.com>
Message-ID: <7e565b5c0706040116q73948fccr488c89f3a6068122@mail.gmail.com>

Jonathan,

Thanks a lot - that accomplished what I wanted to do, and provided me with
insight.

I'm still having some sort of misunderstanding though, because I'm having an
error like this now (in a different section though; this time regarding
post:

2)
Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in 'MessagesController handling POST
/messages should create a new message'
Mock 'Message_1026' received unexpected message :author_id= with (202018)
/Users/sparta/Projects/work/idastudios/podff_machine/config/../app/controllers/messages_controller.rb:31:in
`create'
/Users/sparta/Projects/work/idastudios/podff_machine/config/../vendor/plugins/haml/lib/sass/plugin.rb:116:in
`process_without_test'
./spec/controllers/messages_controller_spec.rb:206:in `do_post'
./spec/controllers/messages_controller_spec.rb:211:

yet I've tried both Message.stub!(:author_id).and_return(1) and @
message.stub!(:author_id).and_return(1) why would it still fail after
stubbing both possibilities?

In my controller i'm calling @message.author_id = current_user.id

Thanks!

On 6/2/07, Jonathan Linowes <jonathan at parkerhill.com> wrote:
>
> fyi, i'm finding the should_receive(:messages) to be too brittle
> because any time I add a call like @user.messages.find or whatever it
> breaks my spec (requiring I do .twice or .times(N) . IMO the spec
> shouldn't be so sensitive to implementation of the behavior, so i'm
> now stubbing the association
>
> replaced
>         @user.should_receive(:messages).and_return(@messages)
> with
>         @user.stub!(:messages).and_return(@messages)
>
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Jonathan Linowes wrote:
>
> > I'm nearly as new at this as you are I'm I'm just figuring things out
> > myself too.
> >
> > I think your problem is method :messages is being called on an
> > instance of User, not the class, so you need
> >
> > @user.stub!(:messages).and_return([@message])
> >
> > here's some clues to how I've gotten similar things working
> > To diagnose problems with my examples, I
> > - watch the test.log file. You could use 'tail' or on mac use the
> > 'console' utility
> > - use the -e option in spec to run one example at a time. I copy/
> > paste the test name from the terminal window to avoid a lot of typing
> > - sometimes I comment out code in my app methods to limit what its
> > actually doing and then add one line at a time to "re-develop" the
> > method
> > - similarly I may create an extra test method in my controller or
> > model to isolate things I dont understand between the spec and the
> > code.
> >
> > I also tend to use should_receive rather than stubs, it provides more
> > details (although seems to make the tests more brittle)
> >
> > thus,
> >
> > # separate for reuse with multiple describe cases
> > def setup_messages do
> >    @user = mock_model(User)
> >    @message = mock_model(Message)
> >    @messages = [@message]
> > end
> >
> > def before(:each) do
> >    setup_messages
> >    User.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@user)
> >    @user.should_receive(:messages).and_return(@messages)
> > end
> >
> > def do_get
> >    get :index, :user_id => 1
> > end
> >
> > it "should find all messages" do
> >    do_get
> >    assigns[:messages].should == @messages
> > end
> >
> > I think this is right. Please let me know
> > :)
> >
> >
> > On Jun 2, 2007, at 4:27 AM, Fischer, Daniel wrote:
> >
> >> Hey,
> >>
> >> Sorry for so many questions - I'm really bad at this right now.
> >>
> >> I'm trying to cover the following code w/ rspec
> >>
> >>   def index
> >>     if params[:user_id]
> >>       @user = User.find(params[:user_id])
> >>       @messages = @user.messages
> >>     end
> >>   end
> >>
> >> So basically what I'm doing is listing all the messages for a user,
> >> provided there is an id parameter.
> >>
> >> describe MessagesController, " handling GET /messages for a user" do
> >>
> >>   before do
> >>     @message = mock_model(Message)
> >>     @message.stub!(:user_id).and_return(1)
> >>     @user = mock_model(User)
> >>     @user.stub!(:id).and_return(1)
> >>     User.stub!(:messages).and_return([@message])
> >>     User.stub!(:find).and_return([@user])
> >>   end
> >>
> >>   def do_get
> >>     get :index, :user_id => 1
> >>   end
> >>
> >>   it "should be successful" do
> >>     do_get
> >>     response.should be_success
> >>   end
> >>
> >>   it "should render index template" do
> >>     do_get
> >>     response.should render_template('index')
> >>   end
> >>
> >>   it "should find all messages" do
> >>     User.should_receive(:messages).and_return([@message])
> >>     do_get
> >>   end
> >>
> >>   it "should assign the found messages for the view" do
> >>     do_get
> >>     assigns[:messages].should == [@message]
> >>   end
> >> end
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm trying to use the basic scaffold spec, but I'm absolutely
> >> clueless
> >> on what the proper way to handle this is, I'm not even sure the
> >> proper
> >> way I should mock the messages method, so it'll return a "stub?" of a
> >> collection, or whatever the proper term is.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry you have to deal with a newb, but if you could really help
> >> me out I'd appreciate it a ton, thanks!
> >> --
> >> -Daniel Fischer
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>



-- 
-Daniel Fischer

http://danielfischer.com - Geek Blog
http://abigfisch.com - Portfolio
http://writersbeat.com - Writing Community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070604/876c5339/attachment-0001.html 

From aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com  Mon Jun  4 04:58:04 2007
From: aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com (aslak hellesoy)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 10:58:04 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] I'm really bad at controllers, help please.
In-Reply-To: <7e565b5c0706040116q73948fccr488c89f3a6068122@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7e565b5c0706020127m121fc734o10dc9b6cd763e635@mail.gmail.com>
	<1BA71784-13D3-4086-9D71-0E46D43D8AE9@parkerhill.com>
	<581CFB5F-3C4A-4383-9E3E-74D609D1B177@parkerhill.com>
	<7e565b5c0706040116q73948fccr488c89f3a6068122@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8d961d900706040158u46a7e8a4jf8bd80be5f4c609f@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/4/07, Fischer, Daniel <daniel at danielfischer.com> wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
> Thanks a lot - that accomplished what I wanted to do, and provided me with
> insight.
>
> I'm still having some sort of misunderstanding though, because I'm having an
> error like this now (in a different section though; this time regarding
> post:
>
> 2)
> Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in 'MessagesController
> handling POST /messages should create a new message'
> Mock 'Message_1026' received unexpected message :author_id= with (202018)
> /Users/sparta/Projects/work/idastudios/podff_machine/config/../app/controllers/messages_controller.rb:31:in
> `create'
> /Users/sparta/Projects/work/idastudios/podff_machine/config/../vendor/plugins/haml/lib/sass/plugin.rb:116:in
> `process_without_test'
> ./spec/controllers/messages_controller_spec.rb:206:in
> `do_post'
> ./spec/controllers/messages_controller_spec.rb:211:
>
> yet I've tried both Message.stub!(:author_id).and_return(1) and
> @message.stub!(:author_id).and_return(1) why would it still fail after
> stubbing both possibilities?
>

You're stubbing the accessor (:author_id) instead of the accessor (:author_id=)

Aslak

> In my controller i'm calling @message.author_id = current_user.id
>
> Thanks!
>
> On 6/2/07, Jonathan Linowes <jonathan at parkerhill.com> wrote:
> > fyi, i'm finding the should_receive(:messages) to be too brittle
> > because any time I add a call like @ user.messages.find or whatever it
> > breaks my spec (requiring I do .twice or .times(N) . IMO the spec
> > shouldn't be so sensitive to implementation of the behavior, so i'm
> > now stubbing the association
> >
> > replaced
> >
> @user.should_receive(:messages).and_return(@messages)
> > with
> >         @user.stub!(:messages).and_return(@messages)
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 2, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Jonathan Linowes wrote:
> >
> > > I'm nearly as new at this as you are I'm I'm just figuring things out
> > > myself too.
> > >
> > > I think your problem is method :messages is being called on an
> > > instance of User, not the class, so you need
> > >
> > > @user.stub!(:messages).and_return([@message])
> > >
> > > here's some clues to how I've gotten similar things working
> > > To diagnose problems with my examples, I
> > > - watch the test.log file. You could use 'tail' or on mac use the
> > > 'console' utility
> > > - use the -e option in spec to run one example at a time. I copy/
> > > paste the test name from the terminal window to avoid a lot of typing
> > > - sometimes I comment out code in my app methods to limit what its
> > > actually doing and then add one line at a time to "re-develop" the
> > > method
> > > - similarly I may create an extra test method in my controller or
> > > model to isolate things I dont understand between the spec and the
> > > code.
> > >
> > > I also tend to use should_receive rather than stubs, it provides more
> > > details (although seems to make the tests more brittle)
> > >
> > > thus,
> > >
> > > # separate for reuse with multiple describe cases
> > > def setup_messages do
> > >    @user = mock_model(User)
> > >    @message = mock_model(Message)
> > >    @messages = [@message]
> > > end
> > >
> > > def before(:each) do
> > >    setup_messages
> > >
> User.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@user)
> > >
> @user.should_receive(:messages).and_return(@messages)
> > > end
> > >
> > > def do_get
> > >    get :index, :user_id => 1
> > > end
> > >
> > > it "should find all messages" do
> > >    do_get
> > >    assigns[:messages].should == @messages
> > > end
> > >
> > > I think this is right. Please let me know
> > > :)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jun 2, 2007, at 4:27 AM, Fischer, Daniel wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hey,
> > >>
> > >> Sorry for so many questions - I'm really bad at this right now.
> > >>
> > >> I'm trying to cover the following code w/ rspec
> > >>
> > >>   def index
> > >>     if params[:user_id]
> > >>       @user = User.find(params[:user_id])
> > >>       @messages = @user.messages
> > >>     end
> > >>   end
> > >>
> > >> So basically what I'm doing is listing all the messages for a user,
> > >> provided there is an id parameter.
> > >>
> > >> describe MessagesController, " handling GET /messages for a user" do
> > >>
> > >>   before do
> > >>     @message = mock_model(Message)
> > >>     @message.stub!(:user_id).and_return(1)
> > >>     @user = mock_model(User)
> > >>     @user.stub!(:id).and_return(1)
> > >>     User.stub!(:messages).and_return([@message])
> > >>     User.stub!(:find).and_return([@user])
> > >>   end
> > >>
> > >>   def do_get
> > >>     get :index, :user_id => 1
> > >>   end
> > >>
> > >>   it "should be successful" do
> > >>     do_get
> > >>     response.should be_success
> > >>   end
> > >>
> > >>   it "should render index template" do
> > >>     do_get
> > >>     response.should render_template('index')
> > >>   end
> > >>
> > >>   it "should find all messages" do
> > >>
> User.should_receive(:messages).and_return([@message])
> > >>     do_get
> > >>   end
> > >>
> > >>   it "should assign the found messages for the view" do
> > >>     do_get
> > >>     assigns[:messages].should == [@message]
> > >>   end
> > >> end
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I'm trying to use the basic scaffold spec, but I'm absolutely
> > >> clueless
> > >> on what the proper way to handle this is, I'm not even sure the
> > >> proper
> > >> way I should mock the messages method, so it'll return a "stub?" of a
> > >> collection, or whatever the proper term is.
> > >>
> > >> I'm sorry you have to deal with a newb, but if you could really help
> > >> me out I'd appreciate it a ton, thanks!
> > >> --
> > >> -Daniel Fischer
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -Daniel Fischer
>
> http://danielfischer.com - Geek Blog
>  http://abigfisch.com - Portfolio
> http://writersbeat.com - Writing Community
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

From aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com  Mon Jun  4 04:59:01 2007
From: aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com (aslak hellesoy)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 10:59:01 +0200
Subject: [rspec-users] I'm really bad at controllers, help please.
In-Reply-To: <8d961d900706040158u46a7e8a4jf8bd80be5f4c609f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7e565b5c0706020127m121fc734o10dc9b6cd763e635@mail.gmail.com>
	<1BA71784-13D3-4086-9D71-0E46D43D8AE9@parkerhill.com>
	<581CFB5F-3C4A-4383-9E3E-74D609D1B177@parkerhill.com>
	<7e565b5c0706040116q73948fccr488c89f3a6068122@mail.gmail.com>
	<8d961d900706040158u46a7e8a4jf8bd80be5f4c609f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8d961d900706040159v7ed99935rc81f660f6b5114dd@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/4/07, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/4/07, Fischer, Daniel <daniel at danielfischer.com> wrote:
> > Jonathan,
> >
> > Thanks a lot - that accomplished what I wanted to do, and provided me with
> > insight.
> >
> > I'm still having some sort of misunderstanding though, because I'm having an
> > error like this now (in a different section though; this time regarding
> > post:
> >
> > 2)
> > Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in 'MessagesController
> > handling POST /messages should create a new message'
> > Mock 'Message_1026' received unexpected message :author_id= with (202018)
> > /Users/sparta/Projects/work/idastudios/podff_machine/config/../app/controllers/messages_controller.rb:31:in
> > `create'
> > /Users/sparta/Projects/work/idastudios/podff_machine/config/../vendor/plugins/haml/lib/sass/plugin.rb:116:in
> > `process_without_test'
> > ./spec/controllers/messages_controller_spec.rb:206:in
> > `do_post'
> > ./spec/controllers/messages_controller_spec.rb:211:
> >
> > yet I've tried both Message.stub!(:author_id).and_return(1) and
> > @message.stub!(:author_id).and_return(1) why would it still fail after
> > stubbing both possibilities?
> >
>
> You're stubbing the accessor (:author_id) instead of the accessor (:author_id=)

I meant:

You're stubbing the accessor (:author_id) instead of the mutator (:author_id=)
Accessor == getter, mutator == setter.

Aslak

>
> Aslak
>
> > In my controller i'm calling @message.author_id = current_user.id
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > On 6/2/07, Jonathan Linowes <jonathan at parkerhill.com> wrote:
> > > fyi, i'm finding the should_receive(:messages) to be too brittle
> > > because any time I add a call like @ user.messages.find or whatever it
> > > breaks my spec (requiring I do .twice or .times(N) . IMO the spec
> > > shouldn't be so sensitive to implementation of the behavior, so i'm
> > > now stubbing the association
> > >
> > > replaced
> > >
> > @user.should_receive(:messages).and_return(@messages)
> > > with
> > >         @user.stub!(:messages).and_return(@messages)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jun 2, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Jonathan Linowes wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm nearly as new at this as you are I'm I'm just figuring things out
> > > > myself too.
> > > >
> > > > I think your problem is method :messages is being called on an
> > > > instance of User, not the class, so you need
> > > >
> > > > @user.stub!(:messages).and_return([@message])
> > > >
> > > > here's some clues to how I've gotten similar things working
> > > > To diagnose problems with my examples, I
> > > > - watch the test.log file. You could use 'tail' or on mac use the
> > > > 'console' utility
> > > > - use the -e option in spec to run one example at a time. I copy/
> > > > paste the test name from the terminal window to avoid a lot of typing
> > > > - sometimes I comment out code in my app methods to limit what its
> > > > actually doing and then add one line at a time to "re-develop" the
> > > > method
> > > > - similarly I may create an extra test method in my controller or
> > > > model to isolate things I dont understand between the spec and the
> > > > code.
> > > >
> > > > I also tend to use should_receive rather than stubs, it provides more
> > > > details (although seems to make the tests more brittle)
> > > >
> > > > thus,
> > > >
> > > > # separate for reuse with multiple describe cases
> > > > def setup_messages do
> > > >    @user = mock_model(User)
> > > >    @message = mock_model(Message)
> > > >    @messages = [@message]
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > > def before(:each) do
> > > >    setup_messages
> > > >
> > User.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@user)
> > > >
> > @user.should_receive(:messages).and_return(@messages)
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > > def do_get
> > > >    get :index, :user_id => 1
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > > it "should find all messages" do
> > > >    do_get
> > > >    assigns[:messages].should == @messages
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > > I think this is right. Please let me know
> > > > :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Jun 2, 2007, at 4:27 AM, Fischer, Daniel wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hey,
> > > >>
> > > >> Sorry for so many questions - I'm really bad at this right now.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm trying to cover the following code w/ rspec
> > > >>
> > > >>   def index
> > > >>     if params[:user_id]
> > > >>       @user = User.find(params[:user_id])
> > > >>       @messages = @user.messages
> > > >>     end
> > > >>   end
> > > >>
> > > >> So basically what I'm doing is listing all the messages for a user,
> > > >> provided there is an id parameter.
> > > >>
> > > >> describe MessagesController, " handling GET /messages for a user" do
> > > >>
> > > >>   before do
> > > >>     @message = mock_model(Message)
> > > >>     @message.stub!(:user_id).and_return(1)
> > > >>     @user = mock_model(User)
> > > >>     @user.stub!(:id).and_return(1)
> > > >>     User.stub!(:messages).and_return([@message])
> > > >>     User.stub!(:find).and_return([@user])
> > > >>   end
> > > >>
> > > >>   def do_get
> > > >>     get :index, :user_id => 1
> > > >>   end
> > > >>
> > > >>   it "should be successful" do
> > > >>     do_get
> > > >>     response.should be_success
> > > >>   end
> > > >>
> > > >>   it "should render index template" do
> > > >>     do_get
> > > >>     response.should render_template('index')
> > > >>   end
> > > >>
> > > >>   it "should find all messages" do
> > > >>
> > User.should_receive(:messages).and_return([@message])
> > > >>     do_get
> > > >>   end
> > > >>
> > > >>   it "should assign the found messages for the view" do
> > > >>     do_get
> > > >>     assigns[:messages].should == [@message]
> > > >>   end
> > > >> end
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm trying to use the basic scaffold spec, but I'm absolutely
> > > >> clueless
> > > >> on what the proper way to handle this is, I'm not even sure the
> > > >> proper
> > > >> way I should mock the messages method, so it'll return a "stub?" of a
> > > >> collection, or whatever the proper term is.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm sorry you have to deal with a newb, but if you could really help
> > > >> me out I'd appreciate it a ton, thanks!
> > > >> --
> > > >> -Daniel Fischer
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> 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
> > > rsp