[rspec-users] collection-based finder methods

David Chelimsky dchelimsky at gmail.com
Wed Jul 22 10:42:13 EDT 2009


On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:12 AM, amkirwan<amkirwan at gmail.com> wrote:
> My spec is a messed up because I have tried everything I can think of
> to mock but this is what I have for the show method. The @user
> instance is setup in the login_and_before_filter_pass macros with the
> following: @user = mock_model(Person, :null_object => true)
>
> The error I keep receiving is that assigns[:letter].should equal
> @letter keeps return that it is expecting a Person object instead of a
> Letter object. The only way I can get it to pass is by putting
> @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
> directly in the "should assign the found letter for the view"
>
> I feel like I must be missing something about how stubbing and mocking
> work
>
>
>  # Get /admin/letters/1
>  def show
>    id = params[:id]
>    @letter =  @user.letters.find(id)
>  end
>
>
> describe Admin::LettersController, "SHOW GET /admin/letters/1" do
>
>  before(:each) do
>    @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)

This @user is an instance variable in the spec, and is not the same
@user that is in the controller.

HTH,
David

>  end
>
>  def do_get
>    put :show, {:id => "1"}, @session
>  end
>
>  login_and_before_filter_pass(:filter => :admin_only,
>                             :request_method => :get,
>                             :action => :show,
>                             :parameters => {:cas_user => 'ak730'})
>
>  it "should be successful" do
>    do_get
>    response.should be_success
>  end
>
>  it "should find the letter requested" do
>    @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>    puts(@letter)
>    do_get
>  end
>
>  it "should assign the found letter for the view" do
>    # uncommenting will allow to pass
>    # @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return
> (@letter)
>    do_get
>    assigns[:letter].should equal(@letter)
>  end
>
>  it "should render show template" do
>    do_get
>    response.should render_template("show")
>  end
>
> end
>
>
>
> On Jul 22, 9:13 am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, amkirwan<amkir... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > How do I spec this following example from the Agile Rails Book listed
>> > below. I am doing a similar thing in my controller and when I
>> > attempted to change it to the collection way of doing the find I am
>> > unable to get my spec to pass though I know it is working fine as my
>> > cucumber features are passing
>>
>> > old rails way:
>>
>> > def show
>> > @order = Order.find(params[:id])
>> > end
>>
>> > new rails way collection-based:
>>
>> > def show
>> > id = params[:id]
>> > @order = @user.orders.find(id)
>>
>> This code is inherently untestable in an isolated/granular way. Your
>> options are:
>>
>> * write higher level specs that use real data
>>   * pros: simplicity and clarity in both code and specs
>>   * cons: brittle due to runtime dependency on correct models, runs slow
>>
>> * write a very invasive spec with complex setup and instance_eval to
>> set up the @user
>>   * pros: runs fast, no runtime dependency on correct models
>>   * cons: brittle due to dependency on internals, complex
>>
>> * refactor the code to make it easier to spec
>>   * pros: more highly decoupled code, simpler specs, fast
>>   * cons: more work up front, may disregard some of what Rails has to offer
>>
>> Note that the first two options are both brittle, but for different
>> reasons. The first is brittle due to a runtime dependency. That means
>> that when you run the spec the model has to be working correctly for
>> the spec to pass, and a failure could be due to a problem in the model
>> or in the controller.
>>
>> The second is due to a code dependency. That means that when you want
>> to change this code, the spec will have to change as well. This is
>> true of any case in which you use mocks or stubs to varying degrees,
>> and that comes with its own tradeoffs. In this case, the necessary
>> stubbing would be complex and invasive enough that it would be a
>> concern to me.
>>
>> Getting to your original question - what does your spec look like now,
>> and what failure message are you getting?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>> > rescue
>> > redirect_to :action => "index"
>> > end
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rspec-users mailing list
>> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
>> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-us... at rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>


More information about the rspec-users mailing list