thr3ads.net - rspec users - [rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with() [Feb 2007]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

James Hughes

2007-Feb-15 00:00 UTC

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

Hi,

I have this setup block:

  setup do
    session[:login] = ''jhughes''
    @user = mock("user")
    User.stub!(:find).and_return(@user)
    @params = {:cn => "Bilbo Baggins",
      :telephoneNumber => "416-277-4418",
      :mail => "bilbo at baggins.com"}
  end

And then this spec:

  specify "should update and save the attributes for user" do
    @user.should_receive(:update_attributes).with(@params).and_return(true)
    post :update, :id => "jhughes", :user => @params
  end

This fails like this:

Mock ''user'' expected :update_attributes with
([:telephoneNumber,
"416-277-4418"], [:mail, "bilbo at baggins.com"], [:cn,
"Bilbo Baggins"])
but received it with ({"cn"=>"Bilbo Baggins",
"telephoneNumber"=>"416-277-4418",
"mail"=>"bilbo at baggins.com"})

Puzzling, especially since inspecting the @params variable just before
the should_receive shows the expected hash.

What am I doing wrong?

James

Jerry West

2007-Feb-15 09:20 UTC

head link

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
James,<br>
<br>
the gem is converting your hash to an array of arrays when it builds
the mock expectation.&nbsp; This is really an artifact of Ruby''s
hash/array
handling - the code in the gem looks perfectly reasonable, it just has
this side-effect.<br>
<br>
If you check out
<tt>$GEM_DIR/rspec-0.7.5.1/lib/spec/mocks/message_expectation.rb</tt>
you will see that <tt>#with()</tt> passes your hash to a new
instance
of <i>ArgumentExpectation,</i> which is defined in
<tt>$GEM_DIR/rspec-0.7.5.1/lib/spec/mocks/argument_expectation.rb</tt>
. &nbsp; There you will see that a hash is a
<i>LiteralArgConstraint</i>
(as opposed to <font color="#3366ff">:anything,</font>
<font
 color="#3366ff">:numeric</font>, and the other parameters
that <tt>#with()</tt>
accepts).&nbsp; The interesting code is around line 89 in
<tt>#process_arg_constraints()</tt>
where your hash is converted one item at a time using the normal Ruby
<i>Enumerable</i>
routine <tt>#collect()</tt>.&nbsp; Which is where the
side-effect happens.<br>
<br>
Try this in irb:<br>
<br>
<pre>$ irb
irb(main):001:0> @params = {:cn => "Bilbo Baggins",
:telephoneNumber => "416-277-4418", :mail => <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:bilbo@baggins.com">"bilbo@baggins.com"</a>}
</pre>
<pre>irb(main):002:0> @params.collect{|c| c}</pre>
<pre>=> [[:cn, "Bilbo Baggins"], [:telephoneNumber,
"416-277-4418"], [:mail, <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:bilbo@baggins.com">"bilbo@baggins.com"</a>]]</pre>
<pre>irb(main):003:0> </pre>
<br>
and you will see that your hash has been converted into the array of
arrays.&nbsp; That''s what happening in the gem once you strip away
<tt>#convert_constraint()</tt>
etc.<br>
<br>
You have a choice of workarounds; the simplest of which is a separate
array <tt>@params_for_mock_user = @params.collect</tt> ; (null body
returns each element as above) and then
<tt>User.should_receive(:update_attributes).with(@params_for_mock_user).<br>
<br>
</tt>It might be worth <a
 href="http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?atid=3152&group_id=797&func=browse">filing
an RFE</a> on this as it''s counter-intuitive and likely to bite
others
as well<br>
<tt><br>
</tt>Hope this helps.<br>
<br>
Rgds,<br>
&nbsp; Jerry<br>
<br>
<br>
James Hughes wrote:
<blockquote
 cite="mid765a2c230702141600j33b98be7w22dab72e5c2cbc10@mail.gmail.com"
 type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">Hi,

I have this setup block:

  setup do
    session[:login] = ''jhughes''
    @user = mock("user")
    User.stub!(:find).and_return(@user)
    @params = {:cn => "Bilbo Baggins",
      :telephoneNumber => "416-277-4418",
      :mail => <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:bilbo@baggins.com">"bilbo@baggins.com"</a>}
  end

And then this spec:

  specify "should update and save the attributes for user" do
    @user.should_receive(:update_attributes).with(@params).and_return(true)
    post :update, :id => "jhughes", :user => @params
  end

This fails like this:

Mock ''user'' expected :update_attributes with
([:telephoneNumber,
"416-277-4418"], [:mail, <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:bilbo@baggins.com">"bilbo@baggins.com"</a>],
[:cn, "Bilbo Baggins"])
but received it with ({"cn"=>"Bilbo Baggins",
"telephoneNumber"=>"416-277-4418",
"mail"=><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:bilbo@baggins.com">"bilbo@baggins.com"</a>})

Puzzling, especially since inspecting the @params variable just before
the should_receive shows the expected hash.

What am I doing wrong?

James
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:rspec-users@rubyforge.org">rspec-users@rubyforge.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users">http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users</a>
  </pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

David Chelimsky

2007-Feb-15 15:09 UTC

head link

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

On 2/15/07, Jerry West <jerry.west at ntlworld.com>
wrote:>
>  James,
>
>  the gem is converting your hash to an array of arrays when it builds the
> mock expectation.  This is really an artifact of Ruby''s hash/array
handling
> - the code in the gem looks perfectly reasonable, it just has this
> side-effect.
>
>  If you check out
> $GEM_DIR/rspec-0.7.5.1/lib/spec/mocks/message_expectation.rb
> you will see that #with() passes your hash to a new instance of
> ArgumentExpectation, which is defined in
> $GEM_DIR/rspec-0.7.5.1/lib/spec/mocks/argument_expectation.rb
> .   There you will see that a hash is a LiteralArgConstraint (as opposed to
> :anything, :numeric, and the other parameters that #with() accepts).  The
> interesting code is around line 89 in #process_arg_constraints() where your
> hash is converted one item at a time using the normal Ruby Enumerable
> routine #collect().  Which is where the side-effect happens.
>
>  Try this in irb:
>
>  $ irb
> irb(main):001:0> @params = {:cn => "Bilbo Baggins",
:telephoneNumber =>
> "416-277-4418", :mail => "bilbo at baggins.com"}
>
>  irb(main):002:0> @params.collect{|c| c}
>  => [[:cn, "Bilbo Baggins"], [:telephoneNumber,
"416-277-4418"], [:mail,
> "bilbo at baggins.com"]]
>  irb(main):003:0>
>
>  and you will see that your hash has been converted into the array of
> arrays.  That''s what happening in the gem once you strip away
> #convert_constraint() etc.
>
>  You have a choice of workarounds; the simplest of which is a separate
array
> @params_for_mock_user = @params.collect ; (null body returns each element
as
> above) and then
> User.should_receive(:update_attributes).with(@params_for_mock_user).
>
>  It might be worth filing an RFE on this as it''s counter-intuitive
and
> likely to bite others as well
Jerry - thanks for explaining this.
James - an RFE would be great.

Cheers,
David
>
>  Hope this helps.
>
>  Rgds,
>    Jerry
>
>
>
>  James Hughes wrote:
>  Hi,
>
> I have this setup block:
>
>  setup do
>  session[:login] = ''jhughes''
>  @user = mock("user")
>  User.stub!(:find).and_return(@user)
>  @params = {:cn => "Bilbo Baggins",
>  :telephoneNumber => "416-277-4418",
>  :mail => "bilbo at baggins.com"}
>  end
>
> And then this spec:
>
>  specify "should update and save the attributes for user" do
> @user.should_receive(:update_attributes).with(@params).and_return(true)
>  post :update, :id => "jhughes", :user => @params
>  end
>
> This fails like this:
>
> Mock ''user'' expected :update_attributes with
([:telephoneNumber,
> "416-277-4418"], [:mail, "bilbo at baggins.com"], [:cn,
"Bilbo Baggins"])
> but received it with ({"cn"=>"Bilbo Baggins",
> "telephoneNumber"=>"416-277-4418",
> "mail"=>"bilbo at baggins.com"})
>
> Puzzling, especially since inspecting the @params variable just before
> the should_receive shows the expected hash.
>
> What am I doing wrong?
>
> James
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

James Hughes

2007-Feb-15 16:59 UTC

head link

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

On 2/15/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:> On 2/15/07, Jerry West <jerry.west at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >  James,
> >
> >  the gem is converting your hash to an array of arrays when it builds
the
> > mock expectation.  This is really an artifact of Ruby''s
hash/array handling
> > - the code in the gem looks perfectly reasonable, it just has this
> > side-effect.
> >
> >  If you check out
> > $GEM_DIR/rspec-0.7.5.1/lib/spec/mocks/message_expectation.rb
> > you will see that #with() passes your hash to a new instance of
> > ArgumentExpectation, which is defined in
> > $GEM_DIR/rspec-0.7.5.1/lib/spec/mocks/argument_expectation.rb
> > .   There you will see that a hash is a LiteralArgConstraint (as
opposed to
> > :anything, :numeric, and the other parameters that #with() accepts). 
The
> > interesting code is around line 89 in #process_arg_constraints() where
your
> > hash is converted one item at a time using the normal Ruby Enumerable
> > routine #collect().  Which is where the side-effect happens.
> >
> >  Try this in irb:
> >
> >  $ irb
> > irb(main):001:0> @params = {:cn => "Bilbo Baggins",
:telephoneNumber =>
> > "416-277-4418", :mail => "bilbo at
baggins.com"}
> >
> >  irb(main):002:0> @params.collect{|c| c}
> >  => [[:cn, "Bilbo Baggins"], [:telephoneNumber,
"416-277-4418"], [:mail,
> > "bilbo at baggins.com"]]
> >  irb(main):003:0>
> >
> >  and you will see that your hash has been converted into the array of
> > arrays.  That''s what happening in the gem once you strip away
> > #convert_constraint() etc.
> >
> >  You have a choice of workarounds; the simplest of which is a separate
array
> > @params_for_mock_user = @params.collect ; (null body returns each
element as
> > above) and then
> > User.should_receive(:update_attributes).with(@params_for_mock_user).
> >
> >  It might be worth filing an RFE on this as it''s
counter-intuitive and
> > likely to bite others as well
>
> Jerry - thanks for explaining this.
> James - an RFE would be great.
Ok, I''ll take a crack at it after I''ve had a chance to
assimilate
Jerry''s explanation. (Thanks, Jerry.)
James

James Hughes

2007-Feb-19 21:32 UTC

head link

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

Hi again,

On 2/15/07, Jerry West <jerry.west at ntlworld.com>
wrote:>
>  James,
>
>  the gem is converting your hash to an array of arrays when it builds the
> mock expectation.  This is really an artifact of Ruby''s hash/array
handling
> - the code in the gem looks perfectly reasonable, it just has this
> side-effect.
>
>  If you check out
> $GEM_DIR/rspec-0.7.5.1/lib/spec/mocks/message_expectation.rb
> you will see that #with() passes your hash to a new instance of
> ArgumentExpectation, which is defined in
> $GEM_DIR/rspec-0.7.5.1/lib/spec/mocks/argument_expectation.rb
> .   There you will see that a hash is a LiteralArgConstraint (as opposed to
> :anything, :numeric, and the other parameters that #with() accepts).  The
> interesting code is around line 89 in #process_arg_constraints() where your
> hash is converted one item at a time using the normal Ruby Enumerable
> routine #collect().  Which is where the side-effect happens.
>
>  Try this in irb:
>
>  $ irb
> irb(main):001:0> @params = {:cn => "Bilbo Baggins",
:telephoneNumber =>
> "416-277-4418", :mail => "bilbo at baggins.com"}
>
>  irb(main):002:0> @params.collect{|c| c}
>  => [[:cn, "Bilbo Baggins"], [:telephoneNumber,
"416-277-4418"], [:mail,
> "bilbo at baggins.com"]]
>  irb(main):003:0>
>
>  and you will see that your hash has been converted into the array of
> arrays.  That''s what happening in the gem once you strip away
> #convert_constraint() etc.
>
>  You have a choice of workarounds; the simplest of which is a separate
array
> @params_for_mock_user = @params.collect ; (null body returns each element
as
> above) and then
> User.should_receive(:update_attributes).with(@params_for_mock_user).
Ok, this works (once I figured out that you have to send the
@params_for_mock_user with the post as well, duh;), but I have another
method that does this:

    user_klass = params[:user].delete(:ou).capitalize.constantize
    @user = user_klass.create(params[:user])

When the spec runs I''m calling delete on an array instead of the
expected hash, which returns nil. Jerry, you mentioned a choice of
workarounds: anything come to mind that might work around
this?>
>  It might be worth filing an RFE on this as it''s counter-intuitive
and
> likely to bite others as well
>
I''m writing this up right now..

James

>  James Hughes wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have this setup block:
>
>  setup do
>  session[:login] = ''jhughes''
>  @user = mock("user")
>  User.stub!(:find).and_return(@user)
>  @params = {:cn => "Bilbo Baggins",
>  :telephoneNumber => "416-277-4418",
>  :mail => "bilbo at baggins.com"}
>  end
>
> And then this spec:
>
>  specify "should update and save the attributes for user" do
> @user.should_receive(:update_attributes).with(@params).and_return(true)
>  post :update, :id => "jhughes", :user => @params
>  end
>
> This fails like this:
>
> Mock ''user'' expected :update_attributes with
([:telephoneNumber,
> "416-277-4418"], [:mail, "bilbo at baggins.com"], [:cn,
"Bilbo Baggins"])
> but received it with ({"cn"=>"Bilbo Baggins",
> "telephoneNumber"=>"416-277-4418",
> "mail"=>"bilbo at baggins.com"})
>
> Puzzling, especially since inspecting the @params variable just before
> the should_receive shows the expected hash.
>
> What am I doing wrong?
>
> James
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

James Hughes

2007-Feb-20 00:13 UTC

head link

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

On 2/15/07, Jerry West <jerry.west at ntlworld.com>
wrote:>
>  It might be worth filing an RFE on this as it''s counter-intuitive
and
> likely to bite others as well
Hello again,

In trying to create some simple code that would reproduce this without
all the rails dependencies for an RFE, I came up with this:

class Test
  def Test.amethod params
    true
  end
end
context "passing a hash to #with" do
  specify "should pass a hash to #with" do
    @params = { :param1 => "foo",
      :param2 => "bar"}
    Test.should_receive(:amethod).with(@params).and_return(true)
    Test.amethod @params
  end
end

I thought this was conceptually the same as my failing spec from the
original post, but obviously it''s not, as it passes. Can anyone
explain what the difference is?

thanks,
James
>  James Hughes wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have this setup block:
>
>  setup do
>  session[:login] = ''jhughes''
>  @user = mock("user")
>  User.stub!(:find).and_return(@user)
>  @params = {:cn => "Bilbo Baggins",
>  :telephoneNumber => "416-277-4418",
>  :mail => "bilbo at baggins.com"}
>  end
>
> And then this spec:
>
>  specify "should update and save the attributes for user" do
> @user.should_receive(:update_attributes).with(@params).and_return(true)
>  post :update, :id => "jhughes", :user => @params
>  end
>
> This fails like this:
>
> Mock ''user'' expected :update_attributes with
([:telephoneNumber,
> "416-277-4418"], [:mail, "bilbo at baggins.com"], [:cn,
"Bilbo Baggins"])
> but received it with ({"cn"=>"Bilbo Baggins",
> "telephoneNumber"=>"416-277-4418",
> "mail"=>"bilbo at baggins.com"})
>
> Puzzling, especially since inspecting the @params variable just before
> the should_receive shows the expected hash.
>
> What am I doing wrong?
>
> James

David Chelimsky

2007-Feb-20 00:58 UTC

head link

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

On 2/19/07, James Hughes <hughes.james at gmail.com>
wrote:> On 2/15/07, Jerry West <jerry.west at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >  It might be worth filing an RFE on this as it''s
counter-intuitive and
> > likely to bite others as well
>
> Hello again,
>
> In trying to create some simple code that would reproduce this without
> all the rails dependencies for an RFE, I came up with this:
>
> class Test
>   def Test.amethod params
>     true
>   end
> end
> context "passing a hash to #with" do
>   specify "should pass a hash to #with" do
>     @params = { :param1 => "foo",
>       :param2 => "bar"}
>     Test.should_receive(:amethod).with(@params).and_return(true)
>     Test.amethod @params
>   end
> end
>
> I thought this was conceptually the same as my failing spec from the
> original post, but obviously it''s not, as it passes. Can anyone
> explain what the difference is?
The difference that I see is that the new example passes @params
directly to Test.amethod, whereas the earlier example uses "post
:update". So I''m guessing that the problem is related specifically
to
how "post :update" packages up the arguments to pass to the model.

WDYT?
>
> thanks,
> James
>
> >  James Hughes wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have this setup block:
> >
> >  setup do
> >  session[:login] = ''jhughes''
> >  @user = mock("user")
> >  User.stub!(:find).and_return(@user)
> >  @params = {:cn => "Bilbo Baggins",
> >  :telephoneNumber => "416-277-4418",
> >  :mail => "bilbo at baggins.com"}
> >  end
> >
> > And then this spec:
> >
> >  specify "should update and save the attributes for user" do
> >
@user.should_receive(:update_attributes).with(@params).and_return(true)
> >  post :update, :id => "jhughes", :user => @params
> >  end
> >
> > This fails like this:
> >
> > Mock ''user'' expected :update_attributes with
([:telephoneNumber,
> > "416-277-4418"], [:mail, "bilbo at baggins.com"],
[:cn, "Bilbo Baggins"])
> > but received it with ({"cn"=>"Bilbo Baggins",
> > "telephoneNumber"=>"416-277-4418",
> > "mail"=>"bilbo at baggins.com"})
> >
> > Puzzling, especially since inspecting the @params variable just before
> > the should_receive shows the expected hash.
> >
> > What am I doing wrong?
> >
> > James
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

James Hughes

2007-Feb-20 04:14 UTC

head link

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

On 2/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:> On 2/19/07, James Hughes <hughes.james at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/15/07, Jerry West <jerry.west at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >  It might be worth filing an RFE on this as it''s
counter-intuitive and
> > > likely to bite others as well
> >
> > Hello again,
> >
> > In trying to create some simple code that would reproduce this without
> > all the rails dependencies for an RFE, I came up with this:
> >
> > class Test
> >   def Test.amethod params
> >     true
> >   end
> > end
> > context "passing a hash to #with" do
> >   specify "should pass a hash to #with" do
> >     @params = { :param1 => "foo",
> >       :param2 => "bar"}
> >     Test.should_receive(:amethod).with(@params).and_return(true)
> >     Test.amethod @params
> >   end
> > end
> >
> > I thought this was conceptually the same as my failing spec from the
> > original post, but obviously it''s not, as it passes. Can
anyone
> > explain what the difference is?
>
> The difference that I see is that the new example passes @params
> directly to Test.amethod, whereas the earlier example uses "post
> :update". So I''m guessing that the problem is related
specifically to
> how "post :update" packages up the arguments to pass to the
model.
>
> WDYT?
If the failure message is to be believed, it''s #with that is packaging
up the arguments in an odd way.
Take a look at the failure message again:
> > > Mock ''user'' expected :update_attributes with
([:telephoneNumber,
> > > "416-277-4418"], [:mail, "bilbo at
baggins.com"], [:cn, "Bilbo Baggins"])
> > > but received it with ({"cn"=>"Bilbo
Baggins",
> > > "telephoneNumber"=>"416-277-4418",
> > > "mail"=>"bilbo at baggins.com"})
See what I mean? (I just checked, and post was doing one modification
to @params: it was changing the keys from symbols to strings. However,
changing the @params keys to strings in the spec still produces the
same error as above, so that''s not the problem.) For final proof,
here''s the output from a couple of print statements, one in the spec
just before post(), and one in the controller action, just before
calling update_attributes:

............in spec
{"cn"=>"Bilbo Baggins",
"telephoneNumber"=>"416-277-4418",
"mail"=>"bilbo at baggins.com"}
in controller
{"cn"=>"Bilbo Baggins",
"telephoneNumber"=>"416-277-4418",
"mail"=>"bilbo at baggins.com"}

So, I still say my app code and my reduction look conceptually the
same, but I''m stumped as to why they don''t behave the same way
(not to
mention I don''t understand the need for #with to mangle it''s
args as
it does).

James

David Chelimsky

2007-Feb-20 11:03 UTC

head link

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

On 2/19/07, James Hughes <hughes.james at gmail.com>
wrote:> On 2/19/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/19/07, James Hughes <hughes.james at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2/15/07, Jerry West <jerry.west at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  It might be worth filing an RFE on this as it''s
counter-intuitive and
> > > > likely to bite others as well
> > >
> > > Hello again,
> > >
> > > In trying to create some simple code that would reproduce this
without
> > > all the rails dependencies for an RFE, I came up with this:
> > >
> > > class Test
> > >   def Test.amethod params
> > >     true
> > >   end
> > > end
> > > context "passing a hash to #with" do
> > >   specify "should pass a hash to #with" do
> > >     @params = { :param1 => "foo",
> > >       :param2 => "bar"}
> > >     Test.should_receive(:amethod).with(@params).and_return(true)
> > >     Test.amethod @params
> > >   end
> > > end
> > >
> > > I thought this was conceptually the same as my failing spec from
the
> > > original post, but obviously it''s not, as it passes. Can
anyone
> > > explain what the difference is?
> >
> > The difference that I see is that the new example passes @params
> > directly to Test.amethod, whereas the earlier example uses "post
> > :update". So I''m guessing that the problem is related
specifically to
> > how "post :update" packages up the arguments to pass to the
model.
> >
> > WDYT?
>
> If the failure message is to be believed, it''s #with that is
packaging
> up the arguments in an odd way.
> Take a look at the failure message again:
>
> > > > Mock ''user'' expected :update_attributes
with ([:telephoneNumber,
> > > > "416-277-4418"], [:mail, "bilbo at
baggins.com"], [:cn, "Bilbo Baggins"])
> > > > but received it with ({"cn"=>"Bilbo
Baggins",
> > > > "telephoneNumber"=>"416-277-4418",
> > > > "mail"=>"bilbo at baggins.com"})
>
> See what I mean? (I just checked, and post was doing one modification
> to @params: it was changing the keys from symbols to strings. However,
> changing the @params keys to strings in the spec still produces the
> same error as above, so that''s not the problem.) For final proof,
> here''s the output from a couple of print statements, one in the
spec
> just before post(), and one in the controller action, just before
> calling update_attributes:
>
> ............in spec
> {"cn"=>"Bilbo Baggins",
"telephoneNumber"=>"416-277-4418",
> "mail"=>"bilbo at baggins.com"}
> in controller
> {"cn"=>"Bilbo Baggins",
"telephoneNumber"=>"416-277-4418",
> "mail"=>"bilbo at baggins.com"}
>
> So, I still say my app code and my reduction look conceptually the
> same, but I''m stumped as to why they don''t behave the
same way (not to
> mention I don''t understand the need for #with to mangle
it''s args as
> it does).
RSpec is doing the comparison correctly. The Rails version is
comparing a Hash with stringified keys w/ a Hash w/ symbols as keys,
whereas the other  version is comparing the exact same Hash (w/ symbol
keys) with itself.

The bug is really in the message. I''m fixing the message so
it''ll
correctly show you the expected Hash, but IMO RSpec shouldn''t be
messing around w/ keys.

WDYT?

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

Jerry West

2007-Feb-20 11:22 UTC

head link

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<blockquote
 cite="mid765a2c230702192014j7a365acfg3563a61301413815@mail.gmail.com"
 type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">(not to mention I don''t understand the
need for #with to mangle it''s args as it does).</pre>
</blockquote>
Ah, now you''re asking.&nbsp; <br>
<br>
<tt>#with</tt> needs to cope with a number of different types of
arguments.&nbsp; It could do this by using a case statement or just
if/else&nbsp;
If there were only two options which could be passed in, that might
have been the best way to do it.&nbsp; But actually, the interface for #with
is really quite complex, taking different types of arguments that need
different treatment.&nbsp; However, although the arguments are different,
the things that need to be done to/with them are the same. <br>
<br>
Since, we''re using an object oriented language, it''s
considered good
practice to implement this form of polymorphism<sup>[1]</sup> by
delegation - we leave the details of implementation to someone
else!&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Essentially, we''re defining an API and implementing a different class
(<tt>LiteralArgConstraint,</tt>
<tt>NumericArgConstraint,</tt>
<tt>RegexArgConstraint</tt>, etc) for
each possibility (a.k.a. duck-typing<sup>[2]</sup>)<i>
</i>.&nbsp; <br>
<br>
This simplifies the handling code immensely - all it does is iterate
over the arguments and ask the correct constraint handler to do the
right thing.&nbsp; Regretably the way it does this iteration has the
unfortunate side effect we are seeing.&nbsp; This would probably happen even
if David hadn''t chosen to ''mangle the args'' as he
does.&nbsp; It''s a
side-effect of <tt>Hash#each</tt>.<br>
<br>
Polymorphic delegation also makes the code more scalable (we only have
to implement a new constraint handler when someone comes up with a
super new idea (e.g. <tt>DuckTypeArgConstraint</tt>); and easier to
maintain (code is localised and hopefully it''s easier to find and fix
bugs).&nbsp; There is an argument that the extra layer introduced adds
complexity, but IMHO once you understand the paradigm, its
interpretation is obvious and the tradeoffs are appropriate.&nbsp; Spaghetti
code is a nightmare to maintain!<br>
<br>
Rgds,<br>
&nbsp; Jerry<br>
<br>
[1] Polymorphic - having more than one form.&nbsp; So polymorphism in a
method is the ability to deal with arguments of different types.&nbsp;
Polymorphism in a class (well, classes) is the ability of different
classes to respond to the same method call, to do what is expected of
them each in their own distinctly different way.&nbsp; This is the posh term
for what every Ruby programmer instinctively knows because they see it
every time they use Enumerable#each on Hash, Array, or String for
example.<br>
<br>
[2] The term is a reference to the <u>duck test </u>— "If it
walks
like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck".&nbsp;
<br>
<br>
Check out Wikipedia on the subjects of polymorphism and duck-typing,
though the articles are a bit too academic for my taste - and I''m a
teacher!<br>
<br>
If you wanted to, you might submit a HashArgConstraint class as a
possible patch to
<tt>lib/specs/mocks/argument_epectation.rb</tt>.&nbsp;
This would ''know'' that it would receive an array of arrays and
adjust
its expectation accordingly.&nbsp; Or have I just slipped into teaching mode
again?&nbsp; Sorry.<br>
</body>
</html>

Jerry West

2007-Feb-20 12:40 UTC

head link

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<blockquote
 cite="mid765a2c230702192014j7a365acfg3563a61301413815@mail.gmail.com"
 type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">
So, I still say my app code and my reduction look conceptually the
same, but I''m stumped as to why they don''t behave the same way
  </pre>
</blockquote>
David seems to have picked that up.&nbsp; Ignore my blatherings about
HashArgConstraint (though the rest is valid).<br>
<br>
Here''s another twist under&nbsp; Rails 1.2.2 (which may not be
supported but
works fine for what I am doing so far).&nbsp; <br>
<br>
Basically, a different <u>expectation</u> seems to be set up
depending
on whether the argument to get/post is a variable or not.&nbsp; That cannot
be right.&nbsp; What am I missing?<br>
<br>
<tt>require File.dirname(__FILE__) +
''/../spec_helper''<br>
<br>
class TestController < ActionController::Base<br>
&nbsp; def index() self.amethod(params) end<br>
end<br>
<br>
context ''a test controller'' do<br>
&nbsp; controller_name :test<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; setup do<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; @plist = { "id" => "1",
"param2" => "bar" }<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
controller.should_receive(:amethod).with(@plist).and_return(true)<br>
&nbsp; end<br>
&nbsp;<br>
&nbsp;specify "should pass a hash to #with (1)" do<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; get :index, "id" => "1",
"param2" => "bar"<br>
&nbsp; end<br>
&nbsp; specify "should pass a hash to #with (2)" do<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; get :index, { "id" => "1",
"param2" => "bar" }<br>
&nbsp; end<br>
&nbsp; specify "should pass a hash to #with (3)" do<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; get :index, @plist<br>
&nbsp; end<br>
end<br>
<br>
</tt><tt>$ spec -cfs spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb
<br>
/usr/bin/spec:17:Warning: require_gem is obsolete.&nbsp; Use gem
instead.<br>
/home/jjw/rails/playground/config/boot.rb:29:Warning: require_gem is
obsolete.&nbsp; Use gem instead.<br>
<br>
a test controller<br>
- should pass a hash to #with (1) (FAILED - 1)<br>
- should pass a hash to #with (2) (FAILED - 2)<br>
- should pass a hash to #with (3) (FAILED - 3)<br>
<br>
1)<br>
''a test controller should pass a hash to #with (1)'' FAILED
<b>(ignore
the failure, look at the expectation)</b><br>
#<TestController:0xb70a1df8> expected :amethod with (["param2",
"bar"], ["id", "1"]) but received it with
({"action"=>"index",
"id"=>"1", "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})<br>
(eval):3:in `amethod''<br>
./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:4:in `index''<br>
/usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:300:in `measure''<br>
./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:13:<br>
<br>
2)<br>
''a test controller should pass a hash to #with (2)'' FAILED
</tt><tt><b>(ignore
the failure, look at the expectation)</b></tt><br>
<tt>#<TestController:0xb7093820> expected :amethod with
(["param2", "bar"], ["id", "1"]) but
received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
"param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})<br>
(eval):3:in `amethod''<br>
./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:4:in `index''<br>
/usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:300:in `measure''<br>
./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:18:<br>
<br>
3)<br>
''a test controller should pass a hash to #with (3)'' FAILED
</tt><tt><b>(ignore
the failure, look at the expectation)</b></tt><br>
<tt>#<TestController:0xb708cf34> expected :amethod with
(<b>[:only_path,
true]</b>, ["param2", "bar"], ["id",
"1"], <b>[:action, :index]</b>)
but received it with ({"action"=>"index",
"id"=>"1",
"param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})<br>
(eval):3:in `amethod''<br>
./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:4:in `index''<br>
/usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:300:in `measure''<br>
./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:23:<br>
<br>
Finished in 0.022612 seconds<br>
<br>
3 specifications, 3 failures<br>
<br>
<br>
</tt>Where the heck did the :only_path stuff come from in the
expectation for case 3??&nbsp; They weren''t there in
ArgumentExpectation#initialize.<br>
<br>
As expected, creating the ''right'' expectation&nbsp;
(<tt>@plist = { "id"
=> "1","param2" => "bar", "action"
=> "index", "controller"
=> "test" } ) </tt>allows the spec to pass in cases 1 &
2, but
#3 still fails.<br>
<br>
rgds from "Confused of Hampshire".<br>
<br>
&nbsp;<br>
<tt><br>
</tt>
</body>
</html>

David Chelimsky

2007-Feb-20 15:42 UTC

head link

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

On 2/20/07, Jerry West <jerry.west at ntlworld.com>
wrote:>
>
>
>  So, I still say my app code and my reduction look conceptually the
> same, but I''m stumped as to why they don''t behave the
same way
>
>  David seems to have picked that up.  Ignore my blatherings about
> HashArgConstraint (though the rest is valid).
>
>  Here''s another twist under  Rails 1.2.2 (which may not be
supported but
> works fine for what I am doing so far).
>
>  Basically, a different expectation seems to be set up depending on whether
> the argument to get/post is a variable or not.  That cannot be right.  What
> am I missing?
>
>  require File.dirname(__FILE__) + ''/../spec_helper''
>
>  class TestController < ActionController::Base
>    def index() self.amethod(params) end
>  end
>
>  context ''a test controller'' do
>    controller_name :test
>
>    setup do
>      @plist = { "id" => "1", "param2"
=> "bar" }
>
> controller.should_receive(:amethod).with(@plist).and_return(true)
>    end
>
>   specify "should pass a hash to #with (1)" do
>      get :index, "id" => "1", "param2"
=> "bar"
>    end
>    specify "should pass a hash to #with (2)" do
>      get :index, { "id" => "1", "param2"
=> "bar" }
>    end
>    specify "should pass a hash to #with (3)" do
>      get :index, @plist
>    end
>  end
>
>  $ spec -cfs spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb
>  /usr/bin/spec:17:Warning: require_gem is obsolete.  Use gem instead.
>  /home/jjw/rails/playground/config/boot.rb:29:Warning:
> require_gem is obsolete.  Use gem instead.
>
>  a test controller
>  - should pass a hash to #with (1) (FAILED - 1)
>  - should pass a hash to #with (2) (FAILED - 2)
>  - should pass a hash to #with (3) (FAILED - 3)
>
>  1)
>  ''a test controller should pass a hash to #with (1)''
FAILED (ignore the
> failure, look at the expectation)
>  #<TestController:0xb70a1df8> expected :amethod with
(["param2", "bar"],
> ["id", "1"]) but received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
> "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
>  (eval):3:in `amethod''
>  ./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:4:in `index''
>  /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:300:in `measure''
>  ./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:13:
>
>  2)
>  ''a test controller should pass a hash to #with (2)''
FAILED (ignore the
> failure, look at the expectation)
>  #<TestController:0xb7093820> expected :amethod with
(["param2", "bar"],
> ["id", "1"]) but received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
> "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
>  (eval):3:in `amethod''
>  ./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:4:in `index''
>  /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:300:in `measure''
>  ./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:18:
>
>  3)
>  ''a test controller should pass a hash to #with (3)''
FAILED (ignore the
> failure, look at the expectation)
>  #<TestController:0xb708cf34> expected :amethod with ([:only_path,
true],
> ["param2", "bar"], ["id", "1"],
[:action, :index]) but received it with
> ({"action"=>"index",
"id"=>"1", "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
>  (eval):3:in `amethod''
>  ./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:4:in `index''
>  /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:300:in `measure''
>  ./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:23:
>
>  Finished in 0.022612 seconds
>
>  3 specifications, 3 failures
>
>
>  Where the heck did the :only_path stuff come from in the expectation for
> case 3??  They weren''t there in ArgumentExpectation#initialize.
>
>  As expected, creating the ''right'' expectation  (@plist =
{ "id" =>
> "1","param2" => "bar", "action"
=> "index", "controller" => "test" } )
> allows the spec to pass in cases 1 & 2, but #3 still fails.
Here''s the same output w/ the latest trunk. Note that it shows #with
correctly receiving a Hash now.

1)
Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''a test controller should pass a
hash to #with (1)''
#<TestController:0x2578854> expected :amethod with
({"param2"=>"bar",
"id"=>"1"}) but received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
"param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:4:in `index''
./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:16:

2)
Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''a test controller should pass a
hash to #with (2)''
#<TestController:0x2516ec4> expected :amethod with
({"param2"=>"bar",
"id"=>"1"}) but received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
"param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:4:in `index''
./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:19:

3)
Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''a test controller should pass a
hash to #with (3)''
#<TestController:0x2461d58> expected :amethod with ({:only_path=>true,
"param2"=>"bar", "id"=>"1",
:action=>:index}) but received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
"param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:4:in `index''
./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:22:

I have NO idea yet about  :only_path. I''ll keep you posted...
>
>  rgds from "Confused of Hampshire".
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

David Chelimsky

2007-Feb-20 16:12 UTC

head link

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

On 2/20/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:> On 2/20/07, Jerry West <jerry.west at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >  So, I still say my app code and my reduction look conceptually the
> > same, but I''m stumped as to why they don''t behave
the same way
> >
> >  David seems to have picked that up.  Ignore my blatherings about
> > HashArgConstraint (though the rest is valid).
> >
> >  Here''s another twist under  Rails 1.2.2 (which may not be
supported but
> > works fine for what I am doing so far).
> >
> >  Basically, a different expectation seems to be set up depending on
whether
> > the argument to get/post is a variable or not.  That cannot be right. 
What
> > am I missing?
> >
> >  require File.dirname(__FILE__) + ''/../spec_helper''
> >
> >  class TestController < ActionController::Base
> >    def index() self.amethod(params) end
> >  end
> >
> >  context ''a test controller'' do
> >    controller_name :test
> >
> >    setup do
> >      @plist = { "id" => "1", "param2"
=> "bar" }
> >
> > controller.should_receive(:amethod).with(@plist).and_return(true)
> >    end
> >
> >   specify "should pass a hash to #with (1)" do
> >      get :index, "id" => "1",
"param2" => "bar"
> >    end
> >    specify "should pass a hash to #with (2)" do
> >      get :index, { "id" => "1",
"param2" => "bar" }
> >    end
> >    specify "should pass a hash to #with (3)" do
> >      get :index, @plist
> >    end
> >  end
> >
> >  $ spec -cfs spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb
> >  /usr/bin/spec:17:Warning: require_gem is obsolete.  Use gem instead.
> >  /home/jjw/rails/playground/config/boot.rb:29:Warning:
> > require_gem is obsolete.  Use gem instead.
> >
> >  a test controller
> >  - should pass a hash to #with (1) (FAILED - 1)
> >  - should pass a hash to #with (2) (FAILED - 2)
> >  - should pass a hash to #with (3) (FAILED - 3)
> >
> >  1)
> >  ''a test controller should pass a hash to #with (1)''
FAILED (ignore the
> > failure, look at the expectation)
> >  #<TestController:0xb70a1df8> expected :amethod with
(["param2", "bar"],
> > ["id", "1"]) but received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
> > "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
> >  (eval):3:in `amethod''
> >  ./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> >  /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:300:in `measure''
> >  ./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:13:
> >
> >  2)
> >  ''a test controller should pass a hash to #with (2)''
FAILED (ignore the
> > failure, look at the expectation)
> >  #<TestController:0xb7093820> expected :amethod with
(["param2", "bar"],
> > ["id", "1"]) but received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
> > "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
> >  (eval):3:in `amethod''
> >  ./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> >  /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:300:in `measure''
> >  ./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:18:
> >
> >  3)
> >  ''a test controller should pass a hash to #with (3)''
FAILED (ignore the
> > failure, look at the expectation)
> >  #<TestController:0xb708cf34> expected :amethod with
([:only_path, true],
> > ["param2", "bar"], ["id",
"1"], [:action, :index]) but received it with
> > ({"action"=>"index",
"id"=>"1", "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
> >  (eval):3:in `amethod''
> >  ./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> >  /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:300:in `measure''
> >  ./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:23:
> >
> >  Finished in 0.022612 seconds
> >
> >  3 specifications, 3 failures
> >
> >
> >  Where the heck did the :only_path stuff come from in the expectation
for
> > case 3??  They weren''t there in
ArgumentExpectation#initialize.
> >
> >  As expected, creating the ''right'' expectation 
(@plist = { "id" =>
> > "1","param2" => "bar",
"action" => "index", "controller" =>
"test" } )
> > allows the spec to pass in cases 1 & 2, but #3 still fails.
>
> Here''s the same output w/ the latest trunk. Note that it shows
#with
> correctly receiving a Hash now.
>
> 1)
> Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''a test controller should
pass a
> hash to #with (1)''
> #<TestController:0x2578854> expected :amethod with
({"param2"=>"bar",
> "id"=>"1"}) but received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
> "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
> ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:16:
>
> 2)
> Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''a test controller should
pass a
> hash to #with (2)''
> #<TestController:0x2516ec4> expected :amethod with
({"param2"=>"bar",
> "id"=>"1"}) but received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
> "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
> ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:19:
>
> 3)
> Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''a test controller should
pass a
> hash to #with (3)''
> #<TestController:0x2461d58> expected :amethod with
({:only_path=>true,
> "param2"=>"bar", "id"=>"1",
:action=>:index}) but received it with
> ({"action"=>"index",
"id"=>"1", "param2"=>"bar",
> "controller"=>"test"})
> ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:22:
>
> I have NO idea yet about  :only_path. I''ll keep you posted...
OK, I now have SOME idea, but I''m still trying to figure out
specifics. The following passes. Note that it uses @plist.dup each
time.

require File.dirname(__FILE__) + ''/../spec_helper''

class TestController < ActionController::Base
  def index() self.amethod(params) end
end

context ''a test controller'' do
  controller_name :test

  setup do
    @plist = { "id" => "1", "param2" =>
"bar" , "controller" =>
"test", "action" => "index" }
    controller.should_receive(:amethod).with(@plist.dup).and_return(true)
  end

 specify "should pass a hash to #with (1)" do
    get :index, "id" => "1", "param2" =>
"bar"
  end

  specify "should pass a hash to #with (2)" do
    get :index, { "id" => "1", "param2" =>
"bar" }
  end

  specify "should pass a hash to #with (3)" do
    get :index, @plist.dup
  end
end

If you search through Rails you''ll find dozens of instances of
:only_path. So the problem SEEMS to be that by the time we reach the
third spec, @plist has been touched by Rails.

BTW - here''s a variation that passes and allows you to deal only w/
the subset of keys you want.

context ''a test controller'' do
  controller_name :test

  setup do
    controller.should_receive(:amethod).and_return(true) { |params|
      params["id"].should == "1"
      params["param2"].should == "bar"
    }
  end

 specify "should pass a hash to #with (1)" do
    get :index, "id" => "1", "param2" =>
"bar"
  end

  specify "should pass a hash to #with (2)" do
    get :index, { "id" => "1", "param2" =>
"bar" }
  end

  specify "should pass a hash to #with (3)" do
    @plist = { "id" => "1", "param2" =>
"bar" }
    get :index, @plist.dup
  end
end

Cheers,
David
>
> >
> >  rgds from "Confused of Hampshire".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
>

David Chelimsky

2007-Feb-20 16:37 UTC

head link

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

On 2/20/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:> On 2/20/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/20/07, Jerry West <jerry.west at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  So, I still say my app code and my reduction look conceptually
the
> > > same, but I''m stumped as to why they don''t
behave the same way
> > >
> > >  David seems to have picked that up.  Ignore my blatherings about
> > > HashArgConstraint (though the rest is valid).
> > >
> > >  Here''s another twist under  Rails 1.2.2 (which may not
be supported but
> > > works fine for what I am doing so far).
> > >
> > >  Basically, a different expectation seems to be set up depending
on whether
> > > the argument to get/post is a variable or not.  That cannot be
right.  What
> > > am I missing?
> > >
> > >  require File.dirname(__FILE__) +
''/../spec_helper''
> > >
> > >  class TestController < ActionController::Base
> > >    def index() self.amethod(params) end
> > >  end
> > >
> > >  context ''a test controller'' do
> > >    controller_name :test
> > >
> > >    setup do
> > >      @plist = { "id" => "1",
"param2" => "bar" }
> > >
> > > controller.should_receive(:amethod).with(@plist).and_return(true)
> > >    end
> > >
> > >   specify "should pass a hash to #with (1)" do
> > >      get :index, "id" => "1",
"param2" => "bar"
> > >    end
> > >    specify "should pass a hash to #with (2)" do
> > >      get :index, { "id" => "1",
"param2" => "bar" }
> > >    end
> > >    specify "should pass a hash to #with (3)" do
> > >      get :index, @plist
> > >    end
> > >  end
> > >
> > >  $ spec -cfs spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb
> > >  /usr/bin/spec:17:Warning: require_gem is obsolete.  Use gem
instead.
> > >  /home/jjw/rails/playground/config/boot.rb:29:Warning:
> > > require_gem is obsolete.  Use gem instead.
> > >
> > >  a test controller
> > >  - should pass a hash to #with (1) (FAILED - 1)
> > >  - should pass a hash to #with (2) (FAILED - 2)
> > >  - should pass a hash to #with (3) (FAILED - 3)
> > >
> > >  1)
> > >  ''a test controller should pass a hash to #with
(1)'' FAILED (ignore the
> > > failure, look at the expectation)
> > >  #<TestController:0xb70a1df8> expected :amethod with
(["param2", "bar"],
> > > ["id", "1"]) but received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
> > > "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
> > >  (eval):3:in `amethod''
> > >  ./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> > >  /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:300:in
`measure''
> > >  ./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:13:
> > >
> > >  2)
> > >  ''a test controller should pass a hash to #with
(2)'' FAILED (ignore the
> > > failure, look at the expectation)
> > >  #<TestController:0xb7093820> expected :amethod with
(["param2", "bar"],
> > > ["id", "1"]) but received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
> > > "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
> > >  (eval):3:in `amethod''
> > >  ./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> > >  /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:300:in
`measure''
> > >  ./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:18:
> > >
> > >  3)
> > >  ''a test controller should pass a hash to #with
(3)'' FAILED (ignore the
> > > failure, look at the expectation)
> > >  #<TestController:0xb708cf34> expected :amethod with
([:only_path, true],
> > > ["param2", "bar"], ["id",
"1"], [:action, :index]) but received it with
> > > ({"action"=>"index",
"id"=>"1", "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
> > >  (eval):3:in `amethod''
> > >  ./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> > >  /usr/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8/benchmark.rb:300:in
`measure''
> > >  ./spec/controllers/test_controller_spec.rb:23:
> > >
> > >  Finished in 0.022612 seconds
> > >
> > >  3 specifications, 3 failures
> > >
> > >
> > >  Where the heck did the :only_path stuff come from in the
expectation for
> > > case 3??  They weren''t there in
ArgumentExpectation#initialize.
> > >
> > >  As expected, creating the ''right'' expectation 
(@plist = { "id" =>
> > > "1","param2" => "bar",
"action" => "index", "controller" =>
"test" } )
> > > allows the spec to pass in cases 1 & 2, but #3 still fails.
> >
> > Here''s the same output w/ the latest trunk. Note that it
shows #with
> > correctly receiving a Hash now.
> >
> > 1)
> > Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''a test controller
should pass a
> > hash to #with (1)''
> > #<TestController:0x2578854> expected :amethod with
({"param2"=>"bar",
> > "id"=>"1"}) but received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
> > "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
> > ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> > ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:16:
> >
> > 2)
> > Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''a test controller
should pass a
> > hash to #with (2)''
> > #<TestController:0x2516ec4> expected :amethod with
({"param2"=>"bar",
> > "id"=>"1"}) but received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
> > "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
> > ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> > ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:19:
> >
> > 3)
> > Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''a test controller
should pass a
> > hash to #with (3)''
> > #<TestController:0x2461d58> expected :amethod with
({:only_path=>true,
> > "param2"=>"bar",
"id"=>"1", :action=>:index}) but received it with
> > ({"action"=>"index",
"id"=>"1", "param2"=>"bar",
> > "controller"=>"test"})
> > ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> > ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:22:
> >
> > I have NO idea yet about  :only_path. I''ll keep you posted...
>
> OK, I now have SOME idea, but I''m still trying to figure out
> specifics. The following passes. Note that it uses @plist.dup each
> time.
>
> require File.dirname(__FILE__) + ''/../spec_helper''
>
> class TestController < ActionController::Base
>   def index() self.amethod(params) end
> end
>
> context ''a test controller'' do
>   controller_name :test
>
>   setup do
>     @plist = { "id" => "1", "param2" =>
"bar" , "controller" =>
> "test", "action" => "index" }
>     controller.should_receive(:amethod).with(@plist.dup).and_return(true)
>   end
>
>  specify "should pass a hash to #with (1)" do
>     get :index, "id" => "1", "param2"
=> "bar"
>   end
>
>   specify "should pass a hash to #with (2)" do
>     get :index, { "id" => "1", "param2"
=> "bar" }
>   end
>
>   specify "should pass a hash to #with (3)" do
>     get :index, @plist.dup
>   end
> end
>
> If you search through Rails you''ll find dozens of instances of
> :only_path. So the problem SEEMS to be that by the time we reach the
> third spec, @plist has been touched by Rails.
>
> BTW - here''s a variation that passes and allows you to deal only
w/
> the subset of keys you want.
>
> context ''a test controller'' do
>   controller_name :test
>
>   setup do
>     controller.should_receive(:amethod).and_return(true) { |params|
>       params["id"].should == "1"
>       params["param2"].should == "bar"
>     }
>   end
>
>  specify "should pass a hash to #with (1)" do
>     get :index, "id" => "1", "param2"
=> "bar"
>   end
>
>   specify "should pass a hash to #with (2)" do
>     get :index, { "id" => "1", "param2"
=> "bar" }
>   end
>
>   specify "should pass a hash to #with (3)" do
>     @plist = { "id" => "1", "param2" =>
"bar" }
>     get :index, @plist.dup
>   end
> end
OK - I figured it out. Because the third spec is passing the actual
Hash instance to "get :index", Rails gets a direct reference to it and
can do what it wants. If you''re interested in details in this case,
take a look at test_process.rb:430/431.

So the lesson here is don''t use expectation objects as parameters to
your system as the system may produce unwanted side effects.

Cheers,
David


>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> >
> > >
> > >  rgds from "Confused of Hampshire".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > >
> >
>

James Hughes

2007-Feb-20 19:17 UTC

head link

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

On 2/20/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:>
> Here''s the same output w/ the latest trunk. Note that it shows
#with
> correctly receiving a Hash now.
David, thanks. I updated to latest trunk and can now pass the same
params hash to both #with and #post and get the expected results. Note
that I didn''t have to deal with the :only_path stuff as I was looking
at params[:user] and not just params.
>
> 1)
> Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''a test controller should
pass a
> hash to #with (1)''
> #<TestController:0x2578854> expected :amethod with
({"param2"=>"bar",
> "id"=>"1"}) but received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
> "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
> ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:16:
>
> 2)
> Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''a test controller should
pass a
> hash to #with (2)''
> #<TestController:0x2516ec4> expected :amethod with
({"param2"=>"bar",
> "id"=>"1"}) but received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
> "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
> ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:19:
>
> 3)
> Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''a test controller should
pass a
> hash to #with (3)''
> #<TestController:0x2461d58> expected :amethod with
({:only_path=>true,
> "param2"=>"bar", "id"=>"1",
:action=>:index}) but received it with
> ({"action"=>"index",
"id"=>"1", "param2"=>"bar",
> "controller"=>"test"})
> ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:22:
>
> I have NO idea yet about  :only_path. I''ll keep you posted...
>
> >
> >  rgds from "Confused of Hampshire".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

James Hughes

2007-Feb-20 19:40 UTC

head link

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

On 2/20/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:> Here''s the same output w/ the latest trunk. Note that it shows
#with
> correctly receiving a Hash now.
Ok, just one more comment here and then I''ll shut up. David, I just
now noticed your comment on the RFE:

"I''ve fixed the message so it will show you the two hashes
(expected
and actual), but I think that getting RSpec to make decisions about
stringifying keys would be a mistake. To that end, I think the right
thing is for you to change your spec to expect a Hash with stringy
keys."

You''re right, changing the hash to have string keys was not a burden
but doing this had zero effect on whether the spec passed or not; my
point all along (and sorry if this was never made clear enough) was
that it did seem like a burden to convert my hash to an array of
2-element arrays in order for the spec to pass. Not to mention, this
would break any code under test that was expecting to deal with a hash
(as in the #delete example that I mentioned in a separate mail).

Anyways, thanks again for looking into this. As an aside, I''m really
enjoying using  rspec!

James

>
> 1)
> Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''a test controller should
pass a
> hash to #with (1)''
> #<TestController:0x2578854> expected :amethod with
({"param2"=>"bar",
> "id"=>"1"}) but received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
> "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
> ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:16:
>
> 2)
> Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''a test controller should
pass a
> hash to #with (2)''
> #<TestController:0x2516ec4> expected :amethod with
({"param2"=>"bar",
> "id"=>"1"}) but received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
> "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
> ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:19:
>
> 3)
> Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''a test controller should
pass a
> hash to #with (3)''
> #<TestController:0x2461d58> expected :amethod with
({:only_path=>true,
> "param2"=>"bar", "id"=>"1",
:action=>:index}) but received it with
> ({"action"=>"index",
"id"=>"1", "param2"=>"bar",
> "controller"=>"test"})
> ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:22:
>
> I have NO idea yet about  :only_path. I''ll keep you posted...
>
> >
> >  rgds from "Confused of Hampshire".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

David Chelimsky

2007-Feb-20 19:51 UTC

head link

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

On 2/20/07, James Hughes <hughes.james at gmail.com>
wrote:> On 2/20/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here''s the same output w/ the latest trunk. Note that it
shows #with
> > correctly receiving a Hash now.
>
> Ok, just one more comment here and then I''ll shut up. David, I
just
> now noticed your comment on the RFE:
>
> "I''ve fixed the message so it will show you the two hashes
(expected
> and actual), but I think that getting RSpec to make decisions about
> stringifying keys would be a mistake. To that end, I think the right
> thing is for you to change your spec to expect a Hash with stringy
> keys."
>
> You''re right, changing the hash to have string keys was not a
burden
> but doing this had zero effect on whether the spec passed or not; my
> point all along (and sorry if this was never made clear enough) was
> that it did seem like a burden to convert my hash to an array of
> 2-element arrays in order for the spec to pass. Not to mention, this
> would break any code under test that was expecting to deal with a hash
> (as in the #delete example that I mentioned in a separate mail).
OK - now I''m confused. As I understand it, the problem was that the
failure message was incorrectly displaying a Hash as an Array of
2-element Arrays. This was ONLY in the message, which was only invoked
after the Hash''s had been correctly compared. There was never an Array
of Array''s being compared.

With that understanding, I don''t see how the spec could have passed
simply by saying #with([[][]]).

Please help me understand.
>
> Anyways, thanks again for looking into this. As an aside, I''m
really
> enjoying using  rspec!
Glad to hear it. And thanks for the feedback in general.

Cheers,
David
>
> James
>
>
> >
> > 1)
> > Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''a test controller
should pass a
> > hash to #with (1)''
> > #<TestController:0x2578854> expected :amethod with
({"param2"=>"bar",
> > "id"=>"1"}) but received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
> > "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
> > ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> > ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:16:
> >
> > 2)
> > Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''a test controller
should pass a
> > hash to #with (2)''
> > #<TestController:0x2516ec4> expected :amethod with
({"param2"=>"bar",
> > "id"=>"1"}) but received it with
({"action"=>"index", "id"=>"1",
> > "param2"=>"bar",
"controller"=>"test"})
> > ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> > ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:19:
> >
> > 3)
> > Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError in ''a test controller
should pass a
> > hash to #with (3)''
> > #<TestController:0x2461d58> expected :amethod with
({:only_path=>true,
> > "param2"=>"bar",
"id"=>"1", :action=>:index}) but received it with
> > ({"action"=>"index",
"id"=>"1", "param2"=>"bar",
> > "controller"=>"test"})
> > ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:4:in `index''
> > ./spec/controllers/temp_spec.rb:22:
> >
> > I have NO idea yet about  :only_path. I''ll keep you posted...
> >
> > >
> > >  rgds from "Confused of Hampshire".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
>

James Hughes

2007-Feb-20 22:10 UTC

head link

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

On 2/20/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:> On 2/20/07, James Hughes <hughes.james at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/20/07, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Here''s the same output w/ the latest trunk. Note that it
shows #with
> > > correctly receiving a Hash now.
> >
> > Ok, just one more comment here and then I''ll shut up. David,
I just
> > now noticed your comment on the RFE:
> >
> > "I''ve fixed the message so it will show you the two
hashes (expected
> > and actual), but I think that getting RSpec to make decisions about
> > stringifying keys would be a mistake. To that end, I think the right
> > thing is for you to change your spec to expect a Hash with stringy
> > keys."
> >
> > You''re right, changing the hash to have string keys was not a
burden
> > but doing this had zero effect on whether the spec passed or not; my
> > point all along (and sorry if this was never made clear enough) was
> > that it did seem like a burden to convert my hash to an array of
> > 2-element arrays in order for the spec to pass. Not to mention, this
> > would break any code under test that was expecting to deal with a hash
> > (as in the #delete example that I mentioned in a separate mail).
>
> OK - now I''m confused.
It would appear that I am the one who is confused. I had a distinct
memory of my spec still failing after I had changed the keys to
strings, but I just reverted to r1514 to double check that, and
indeed, it passed with string keys, and failed with symbol keys. I got
so caught up in chasing down all the possible combinations of how to
do this that I somehow convinced myself that the keys issue was a red
herring. My apologies.

At least you fixed the message bug ;)

James

Maybe Matching Threads

Search for more maybe matching threads

rspec users - Feb 2007 - Odd parameter munging with with()

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

[rspec-users] Odd parameter munging with with()

Maybe Matching Threads