rspec users - Sep 2010 - Where do a set the description on a should satisfy.

Hi all,

Newbie here and I''m using rspec with jruby to test a java class, but
this is
more of a rspec question.

I have a java HashMap object and want to make sure a key exists.  I
have this as
my test:


    context :toHashMap do
      subject { @var_list.toHashMap }

      it { should satisfy{|a| a.contains_key?(var1) } }
      it { should satisfy{|a| a.contains_key?(var2) } }
      it { should satisfy{|a| a.contains_key?(var3) } }
    end

@var_list is set to another java object that has a method toHashMap
that returns
a HashMap.  var1, var2 and var3 are set using let(:var1), etc.  If the
one of
these fails, I get this telling me that I need to supply a description
method:
>>>>>>
''Java::LibraryLanguage::XmlVariableList when added duplicate variables
with
different values toHashMap should When you call a matcher in an
example without
a String, like this:

specify { object.should matcher }

or this:

it { should matcher }

RSpec expects the matcher to have a #description method. You should
either
add a String to the example this matcher is being used in, or give it
a
description method. Then you won''t have to suffer this lengthy warning
again.
'' FAILED
expected {var01=2, var02=this-is-a-string} to satisfy block
<<<<<<<


I''d like to put ''contain the key <blah>'' in
place of ''When you call a
matcher in
an example without a String''

Where do I put that string?  I thought I could just do:

it "should contain the key #{var1}" { should satisify{|a|
a.contains_key?(var1)
} }

But, the loading complains on that.  Where can a put a custom
description into
this code (easily/polite way).

Thanks,

GregD

On Sep 24, 2010, at 1:29 PM, GregD wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Newbie here and I''m using rspec with jruby to test a java class,
but
> this is more of a rspec question.
> 
> I have a java HashMap object and want to make sure a key exists.  I
> have this as my test:
> 
>    context :toHashMap do
>      subject { @var_list.toHashMap }
> 
>      it { should satisfy{|a| a.contains_key?(var1) } }
>      it { should satisfy{|a| a.contains_key?(var2) } }
>      it { should satisfy{|a| a.contains_key?(var3) } }
>    end
> 
> @var_list is set to another java object that has a method toHashMap
> that returns
> a HashMap.  var1, var2 and var3 are set using let(:var1), etc.  If the
> one of
> these fails, I get this telling me that I need to supply a description
> method:
> 
> ''Java::LibraryLanguage::XmlVariableList when added duplicate
variables
> with different values toHashMap should When you call a matcher in an
> example without a String, like this:
> 
> specify { object.should matcher }
> 
> or this:
> 
> it { should matcher }
> 
> RSpec expects the matcher to have a #description method. You should
> either
> add a String to the example this matcher is being used in, or give it
> a
> description method. Then you won''t have to suffer this lengthy
warning
> again.
> '' FAILED
> expected {var01=2, var02=this-is-a-string} to satisfy block
> <<<<<<<
> 
> 
> I''d like to put ''contain the key <blah>''
in place of ''When you call a
> matcher in
> an example without a String''
> 
> Where do I put that string?  I thought I could just do:
> 
> it "should contain the key #{var1}" { should satisify{|a|
> a.contains_key?(var1)
> } }
> 
> But, the loading complains on that.  Where can a put a custom
> description into
> this code (easily/polite way).
Congratulations - you''re apparently the first person to ever use the
satisfy matcher with an implicit subject, and have uncovered a bug!

http://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/issues/issue/20

I''d recommend not using that satisfy matcher for this case though, as
it''s really intended to be more of a last resort, and you can do much
better with a custom matcher:

  RSpec::Matchers.define :contain_key do |key|
    match do |subject|
      subject.contains_key?(key)
    end
  end

Then you can say:

  context :toHashMap do
    subject { @var_list.toHashMap }

    it { should contain_key(var1) }
    it { should contain_key(var2) }
    it { should contain_key(var3) }
  end

More info on custom matchers:
http://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/blob/master/features/matchers/define_matcher.feature

HTH,
David


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20100926/e018b973/attachment.html>

That helped a lot and I see it is a better/more polite 1-liner-way.
Do you recommend that these custom matchers probably need to go into a
spec helper for standard java classes and included since contains_key?
(key) maps to the java HashMap method containsKey(key)?  Do I put
these in a ruby module to be included?

Thanks,

GregD (newbie)




On Sep 26, 6:37?pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2010, at 1:29 PM, GregD wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > Newbie here and I''m using rspec with jruby to test a java
class, but
> > this is more of a rspec question.
>
> > I have a java HashMap object and want to make sure a key exists. ?I
> > have this as my test:
>
> > ? ?context :toHashMap do
> > ? ? ?subject { @var_list.toHashMap }
>
> > ? ? ?it { should satisfy{|a| a.contains_key?(var1) } }
> > ? ? ?it { should satisfy{|a| a.contains_key?(var2) } }
> > ? ? ?it { should satisfy{|a| a.contains_key?(var3) } }
> > ? ?end
>
> > @var_list is set to another java object that has a method toHashMap
> > that returns
> > a HashMap. ?var1, var2 and var3 are set using let(:var1), etc. ?If the
> > one of
> > these fails, I get this telling me that I need to supply a description
> > method:
>
> > ''Java::LibraryLanguage::XmlVariableList when added duplicate
variables
> > with different values toHashMap should When you call a matcher in an
> > example without a String, like this:
>
> > specify { object.should matcher }
>
> > or this:
>
> > it { should matcher }
>
> > RSpec expects the matcher to have a #description method. You should
> > either
> > add a String to the example this matcher is being used in, or give it
> > a
> > description method. Then you won''t have to suffer this
lengthy warning
> > again.
> > '' FAILED
> > expected {var01=2, var02=this-is-a-string} to satisfy block
> > <<<<<<<
>
> > I''d like to put ''contain the key
<blah>'' in place of ''When you call a
> > matcher in
> > an example without a String''
>
> > Where do I put that string? ?I thought I could just do:
>
> > it "should contain the key #{var1}" { should satisify{|a|
> > a.contains_key?(var1)
> > } }
>
> > But, the loading complains on that. ?Where can a put a custom
> > description into
> > this code (easily/polite way).
>
> Congratulations - you''re apparently the first person to ever use
the satisfy matcher with an implicit subject, and have uncovered a bug!
>
> http://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/issues/issue/20
>
> I''d recommend not using that satisfy matcher for this case though,
as it''s really intended to be more of a last resort, and you can do
much better with a custom matcher:
>
> ? RSpec::Matchers.define :contain_key do |key|
> ? ? match do |subject|
> ? ? ? subject.contains_key?(key)
> ? ? end
> ? end
>
> Then you can say:
>
> ? context :toHashMap do
> ? ? subject { @var_list.toHashMap }
>
> ? ? it { should contain_key(var1) }
> ? ? it { should contain_key(var2) }
> ? ? it { should contain_key(var3) }
> ? end
>
> More info on custom
matchers:http://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/blob/master/features/match...
>
> HTH,
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at
rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

On Sep 27, 2010, at 8:05 AM, GregD wrote:
> On Sep 26, 6:37 pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 2010, at 1:29 PM, GregD wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>> 
>>> Newbie here and I''m using rspec with jruby to test a java
class, but
>>> this is more of a rspec question.
>> 
>>> I have a java HashMap object and want to make sure a key exists.  I
>>> have this as my test:
>> 
>>>    context :toHashMap do
>>>      subject { @var_list.toHashMap }
>> 
>>>      it { should satisfy{|a| a.contains_key?(var1) } }
>>>      it { should satisfy{|a| a.contains_key?(var2) } }
>>>      it { should satisfy{|a| a.contains_key?(var3) } }
>>>    end
>> 
>>> @var_list is set to another java object that has a method toHashMap
>>> that returns
>>> a HashMap.  var1, var2 and var3 are set using let(:var1), etc.  If
the
>>> one of
>>> these fails, I get this telling me that I need to supply a
description
>>> method:
>> 
>>> ''Java::LibraryLanguage::XmlVariableList when added
duplicate variables
>>> with different values toHashMap should When you call a matcher in
an
>>> example without a String, like this:
>> 
>>> specify { object.should matcher }
>> 
>>> or this:
>> 
>>> it { should matcher }
>> 
>>> RSpec expects the matcher to have a #description method. You should
>>> either
>>> add a String to the example this matcher is being used in, or give
it
>>> a
>>> description method. Then you won''t have to suffer this
lengthy warning
>>> again.
>>> '' FAILED
>>> expected {var01=2, var02=this-is-a-string} to satisfy block
>>> <<<<<<<
>> 
>>> I''d like to put ''contain the key
<blah>'' in place of ''When you call a
>>> matcher in
>>> an example without a String''
>> 
>>> Where do I put that string?  I thought I could just do:
>> 
>>> it "should contain the key #{var1}" { should satisify{|a|
>>> a.contains_key?(var1)
>>> } }
>> 
>>> But, the loading complains on that.  Where can a put a custom
>>> description into
>>> this code (easily/polite way).
>> 
>> Congratulations - you''re apparently the first person to ever
use the satisfy matcher with an implicit subject, and have uncovered a bug!
>> 
>> http://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/issues/issue/20
>> 
>> I''d recommend not using that satisfy matcher for this case
though, as it''s really intended to be more of a last resort, and you
can do much better with a custom matcher:
>> 
>>   RSpec::Matchers.define :contain_key do |key|
>>     match do |subject|
>>       subject.contains_key?(key)
>>     end
>>   end
>> 
>> Then you can say:
>> 
>>   context :toHashMap do
>>     subject { @var_list.toHashMap }
>> 
>>     it { should contain_key(var1) }
>>     it { should contain_key(var2) }
>>     it { should contain_key(var3) }
>>   end
>> 
>> More info on custom
matchers:http://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/blob/master/features/match...
>> 
>> HTH,
>> David
> That helped a lot and I see it is a better/more polite 1-liner-way.
> Do you recommend that these custom matchers probably need to go into a
> spec helper for standard java classes and included since contains_key?
> (key) maps to the java HashMap method containsKey(key)?  Do I put
> these in a ruby module to be included?
[I moved your responses to the bottom. Please use bottom or inline posting
rather than top posting. ]

The convention is to have a line like this in spec/spec_helper.rb:

  Dir["./spec/support/**/*.rb"].each {|f| require f}

And then keep matchers and other support files under ./spec/support/

HTH,
David

On Sep 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> 
> On Sep 27, 2010, at 8:05 AM, GregD wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 26, 6:37 pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>> On Sep 24, 2010, at 1:29 PM, GregD wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>>> Newbie here and I''m using rspec with jruby to test a
java class, but
>>>> this is more of a rspec question.
>>> 
>>>> I have a java HashMap object and want to make sure a key
exists.  I
>>>> have this as my test:
>>> 
>>>>   context :toHashMap do
>>>>     subject { @var_list.toHashMap }
>>> 
>>>>     it { should satisfy{|a| a.contains_key?(var1) } }
>>>>     it { should satisfy{|a| a.contains_key?(var2) } }
>>>>     it { should satisfy{|a| a.contains_key?(var3) } }
>>>>   end
>>> 
>>>> @var_list is set to another java object that has a method
toHashMap
>>>> that returns
>>>> a HashMap.  var1, var2 and var3 are set using let(:var1), etc. 
If the
>>>> one of
>>>> these fails, I get this telling me that I need to supply a
description
>>>> method:
>>> 
>>>> ''Java::LibraryLanguage::XmlVariableList when added
duplicate variables
>>>> with different values toHashMap should When you call a matcher
in an
>>>> example without a String, like this:
>>> 
>>>> specify { object.should matcher }
>>> 
>>>> or this:
>>> 
>>>> it { should matcher }
>>> 
>>>> RSpec expects the matcher to have a #description method. You
should
>>>> either
>>>> add a String to the example this matcher is being used in, or
give it
>>>> a
>>>> description method. Then you won''t have to suffer this
lengthy warning
>>>> again.
>>>> '' FAILED
>>>> expected {var01=2, var02=this-is-a-string} to satisfy block
>>>> <<<<<<<
>>> 
>>>> I''d like to put ''contain the key
<blah>'' in place of ''When you call a
>>>> matcher in
>>>> an example without a String''
>>> 
>>>> Where do I put that string?  I thought I could just do:
>>> 
>>>> it "should contain the key #{var1}" { should
satisify{|a|
>>>> a.contains_key?(var1)
>>>> } }
>>> 
>>>> But, the loading complains on that.  Where can a put a custom
>>>> description into
>>>> this code (easily/polite way).
>>> 
>>> Congratulations - you''re apparently the first person to
ever use the satisfy matcher with an implicit subject, and have uncovered a bug!
>>> 
>>> http://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/issues/issue/20
>>> 
>>> I''d recommend not using that satisfy matcher for this case
though, as it''s really intended to be more of a last resort, and you
can do much better with a custom matcher:
>>> 
>>>  RSpec::Matchers.define :contain_key do |key|
>>>    match do |subject|
>>>      subject.contains_key?(key)
>>>    end
>>>  end
>>> 
>>> Then you can say:
>>> 
>>>  context :toHashMap do
>>>    subject { @var_list.toHashMap }
>>> 
>>>    it { should contain_key(var1) }
>>>    it { should contain_key(var2) }
>>>    it { should contain_key(var3) }
>>>  end
>>> 
>>> More info on custom
matchers:http://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/blob/master/features/match...
>>> 
>>> HTH,
>>> David
> 
>> That helped a lot and I see it is a better/more polite 1-liner-way.
>> Do you recommend that these custom matchers probably need to go into a
>> spec helper for standard java classes and included since contains_key?
>> (key) maps to the java HashMap method containsKey(key)?  Do I put
>> these in a ruby module to be included?
> 
> [I moved your responses to the bottom. Please use bottom or inline posting
rather than top posting. ]
> 
> The convention is to have a line like this in spec/spec_helper.rb:
> 
>  Dir["./spec/support/**/*.rb"].each {|f| require f}
> 
> And then keep matchers and other support files under ./spec/support/
re: how to include them: yes, in a module:

# in spec/support/custom_matchers.rb
module CustomMatchers
  ...
end

# in spec/spec_helper.rb
RSpec.configure do |c|
  c.include CustomMatchers
end

Make sense?

---- David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sep 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> 
> re: how to include them: yes, in a module:
> 
> # in spec/support/custom_matchers.rb
> module CustomMatchers
>   ...
> end
> 
> # in spec/spec_helper.rb
> RSpec.configure do |c|
>   c.include CustomMatchers
> end
> 
> Make sense?

Yes.  Thanks.

GregD

On Sep 27, 9:14?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> re: how to include them: yes, in a module:
>
> # in spec/support/custom_matchers.rb
> module CustomMatchers
> ? ...
> end
>
> # in spec/spec_helper.rb
> RSpec.configure do |c|
> ? c.include CustomMatchers
> end
>
Okay, 1 more question and maybe this is more of a convention request.
I know in my rails apps that my environment is loaded when running my
specs from a rake task or from the spec command.  But for a non-rails
app, it would be nice to default spec program to load spec_helper if
it exists in the spec dir.  Like:

jruby -S spec spec

instead of having to do this to include the spec_helper every time:

jruby -S spec -r spec/spec_helper.rb spec

Or am I missing something?  Or is that just not desirable?  I know I
can use rake and create a rake task(s), but from the perspective of
the command line, it would be nice to not to have to supply the -r
option unless you want to include something "outside" of this
convention.

Regards,

GregD

On 9/27/10 8:23 AM, GregD wrote:
>
> On Sep 27, 9:14 am, David Chelimsky<dchelim... at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Sep 27, 2010, at 8:12 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> re: how to include them: yes, in a module:
>>
>> # in spec/support/custom_matchers.rb
>> module CustomMatchers
>>    ...
>> end
>>
>> # in spec/spec_helper.rb
>> RSpec.configure do |c|
>>    c.include CustomMatchers
>> end
>>
> Okay, 1 more question and maybe this is more of a convention request.
> I know in my rails apps that my environment is loaded when running my
> specs from a rake task or from the spec command.  But for a non-rails
> app, it would be nice to default spec program to load spec_helper if
> it exists in the spec dir.  Like:
>
> jruby -S spec spec
>
> instead of having to do this to include the spec_helper every time:
>
> jruby -S spec -r spec/spec_helper.rb spec
>
> Or am I missing something?  Or is that just not desirable?  I know I
> can use rake and create a rake task(s), but from the perspective of
> the command line, it would be nice to not to have to supply the -r
> option unless you want to include something "outside" of this
> convention.
>
For rails and non-rails apps/libs the convention is to have each 
*_spec.rb file require the ''spec_helper'' at the top of the
spec like so:

http://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/blob/master/spec/rspec/core_spec.rb#L1

By following this convention you will only have to specify the spec on 
the command line.

HTH,
Ben

On Sep 27, 12:38?pm, Ben Mabey <b... at benmabey.com> wrote:
> For rails and non-rails apps/libs the convention is to have each
> *_spec.rb file require the ''spec_helper'' at the top of
the spec like so:
>
> http://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/blob/master/spec/rspec/core_spec.r...
>
> By following this convention you will only have to specify the spec on
> the command line.
>
Duh!  Thanks.  Brain fart on my part.  I went and looked back at my
rails apps and yes I missed that for these specs.

Works like a charm.  Sorry for being stupid.

GregD