[rspec-users] Is #valid? automatically called?

Pat Maddox pat.maddox at gmail.com
Thu Feb 12 18:42:32 EST 2009


On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:59 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Nick Hoffman <nick at deadorange.com> wrote:
>
>> Does RSpec automatically call #valid? on ActiveRecord models?
>>
>> For instance, when this example is run:
>>
>> it 'should reject a nil value' do
>>  @form = TimeShiftForm.new :file => nil
>>
>>  puts "@form.errors.count = <<#{@form.errors.count}>>"
>>  @form.should have(1).error_on :file
>
> This matcher, have(1).error_on, does call #valid.
>
>>
>>  puts "@form.errors.count = <<#{@form.errors.count}>>"
>> end
>>
>> This is printed:
>> @form.errors.count = <<0>>
>> @form.errors.count = <<1>>
>>
>> However, I never called @form.valid? , which leads me to believe that
>> RSpec called it for me.
>
> In this case, yes, because the matcher needs that.
>
>> If RSpec does in fact call #valid? automatically, should we refrain from
>> manually calling #valid?
>
> The fact that you are asking this shows that we're violating the principle
> of least surprise. We could make it so it doesn't validate, but that would
> pit the onus on users to validate explicitly (not to mention the upgrade
> burden).
>
> Thoughts?

Yes it's a surprise, but maybe a pleasant one?  I actually didn't know
about this until 2 weeks ago :)  One of my coworkers showed me a spec
that included error_on but didn't explicitly call valid?  We both
scratched our heads a bit, prompting me to check out the code.

I think it'll catch a few people by surprise.  I don't know that it
will lead to errors though.  And I think it keeps the code a bit
cleaner (valid? may be explicit, but it's noisy as well), still
expressing the intent well.

Pat


More information about the rspec-users mailing list