rspec users - Jan 2012 - Can I set subject to its own method call?

The symbol "subject" by default is an instance of the described class.
In some method testing I often want to set the subject to be a method
call to the instance, for example "city.parse_input()".

I tried to do

describe ''#parse_input'' do
subject{ subject.parse_input() } #returns hash
...
end

but I can''t.

I want to ask where did I get the semantic of this subject command
wrong which prevent me from doing this. Thanks.

Why don''t you use let:

describe MyClass do                         # Will set subject to an instance of
MyClass
  context ''#parse_input'' do
    let(:input) { subject.parse_input }     # calling input in your specs will
now return the result of parse_input

    it ''is a hash'' do
      input.should be_a(Hash)              # This evaluates let(:input)
    end
  end
end

Hope that helps.

Andrew 

On Thursday 05 January 2012 at 11:26 AM, m wrote:
> The symbol "subject" by default is an instance of the described
class.
> In some method testing I often want to set the subject to be a method
> call to the instance, for example "city.parse_input()".
> 
> I tried to do
> 
> describe ''#parse_input'' do
> subject{ subject.parse_input() } #returns hash
> ...
> end
> 
> but I can''t.
> 
> I want to ask where did I get the semantic of this subject command
> wrong which prevent me from doing this. Thanks.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org (mailto:rspec-users at rubyforge.org)
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20120105/302a17ba/attachment.html>

Thanks, I was using another way before until I properly read through
the rspec doc.

I was doing this in another example:

let(:instance) { described_class.new() }

describe ''
subject { instance.parse_log() }

its([:duration]){ should == mock_duration}
its([:owner]){ should == mock_editor}

I guess it just feels more natural to me to put the describe method
call in the center of the spec, which is the subject. And it is more
abbreviated (I don''t have to put a shoulda in a it block which is
three lines).


On 1?6?, ??12?31?, Andrew Timberlake <and... at andrewtimberlake.com>
wrote:
> Why don''t you use let:
>
> describe MyClass do ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? # Will set subject to an
instance of MyClass
> ? context ''#parse_input'' do
> ? ? let(:input) { subject.parse_input } ? ? # calling input in your specs
will now return the result of parse_input
>
> ? ? it ''is a hash'' do
> ? ? ? input.should be_a(Hash) ? ? ? ? ? ? ?# This evaluates let(:input)
> ? ? end
> ? end
> end
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Andrew
>
> On Thursday 05 January 2012 at 11:26 AM, m wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The symbol "subject" by default is an instance of the
described class.
> > In some method testing I often want to set the subject to be a method
> > call to the instance, for example "city.parse_input()".
>
> > I tried to do
>
> > describe ''#parse_input'' do
> > subject{ subject.parse_input() } #returns hash
> > ...
> > end
>
> > but I can''t.
>
> > I want to ask where did I get the semantic of this subject command
> > wrong which prevent me from doing this. Thanks.
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org (mailto: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