rspec users - Jul 2007 - Mocking User.find( :all, :limit => 10 )

Hi,

I''m trying to setup a mock for my controller test but I can''t
get it to
recognise the mock.

I use

  it "should find all users" do
    User.should_receive(:find).with( :all, :limit => 10
).and_return([@user])
    do_get
  end

and in the controller
@users = User.find(:all, :limit => 10 )

But this does not work.  It gives me
User expected :find with (:all) once, but received it 0 times

If I remove the :limit from the controller
@users = User.find(:all)

I get
User expected :find with (:all, {:limit=>10}) once, but received it 0 times

How do I spec mocks with options passed to them?

Cheers
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070710/4d8df89c/attachment.html

My Bad... Please ignore

On 7/10/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I''m trying to setup a mock for my controller test but I
can''t get it to
> recognise the mock.
>
> I use
>
>   it "should find all users" do
>     User.should_receive(:find).with( :all, :limit => 10
> ).and_return([@user])
>     do_get
>   end
>
> and in the controller
> @users = User.find(:all, :limit => 10 )
>
> But this does not work.  It gives me
> User expected :find with (:all) once, but received it 0 times
>
> If I remove the :limit from the controller
> @users = User.find(:all)
>
> I get
> User expected :find with (:all, {:limit=>10}) once, but received it 0
> times
>
> How do I spec mocks with options passed to them?
>
> Cheers
> Daniel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070710/cb13ee46/attachment.html

On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:00 PM, Daniel N wrote:
> My Bad... Please ignore
>
> On 7/10/07, Daniel N <has.sox at gmail.com> wrote:
>   it "should find all users" do
>     User.should_receive(:find).with( :all, :limit => 10 ).and_return 
> ([@user])
>     do_get
>   end
Sorry for piggybacking on your post, but since you''ve apparantly  
figured out your isssue I have a slightly similar question; sometimes  
I have (in ActiveRecord) a verbose #find I want to mock out using  
should_receive, maybe looking something along this:
Foo.find(:all, :select => "foos.*, bars.*, :joins => "join
bazzers on
foos.baz_id = ..", :conditions => "quux = 1", etc etc)
... But all I really may care about with a specific mock expectation  
is that it gets the right :conditions key in the passed-in hash.

Is there a way in RSpec to check for a specific hash key (or  
evaluating other things along those lines) in the parameter  
expectation using the should_receive(:find).with(...) construct?

JS

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070709/1bfa23f9/attachment.html

On 7/9/07, Johan S?rensen <johan at johansorensen.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Is there a way in RSpec to check for a specific hash key (or evaluating
> other things along those lines) in the parameter expectation using the
> should_receive(:find).with(...) construct?
>

As opposed to getting into complicated mocking scenarios, consider
abstracting this logic into your model:
http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2007/6/19/rspec-notes-from-the-trenches-2




-- 
Josh Knowles
joshknowles at gmail.com
http://joshknowles.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070709/e823b7a8/attachment.html

On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:38 PM, Josh Knowles wrote:
> On 7/9/07, Johan S?rensen <johan at johansorensen.com> wrote:
>
>
> Is there a way in RSpec to check for a specific hash key (or  
> evaluating other things along those lines) in the parameter  
> expectation using the should_receive(:find).with(...) construct?
>
>
> As opposed to getting into complicated mocking scenarios, consider  
> abstracting this logic into your model: http://blog.caboo.se/ 
> articles/2007/6/19/rspec-notes-from-the-trenches-2

Well, that''s where it is, and for various reasons writing to the  
database is something I''m avoiding as long as I can (speedy tests and  
complex fk constraints being a few of them). I''m still not convinced  
that it''s a good idea to do that for model specs, but that''s
another
topic ;)

JS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070709/661f9da8/attachment.html

On 7/9/07, Josh Knowles <joshknowles at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On 7/9/07, Johan S?rensen <johan at johansorensen.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Is there a way in RSpec to check for a specific hash key (or
evaluating
> other things along those lines) in the parameter expectation using the
> should_receive(:find).with(...) construct?
>
>
> As opposed to getting into complicated mocking scenarios, consider
> abstracting this logic into your model:
> http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2007/6/19/rspec-notes-from-the-trenches-2
Agreed that this is a good approach in terms of dealing w/ rails
models. As for the question of isolating specific key/value pairs in a
hash, you could do this:

obj.should_receive(:message) do |*args|
  hash = args.pop
  hash[interesting_key].should == expected_value
end

It''s not pretty, but it works.

The other thing you might consider is a custom matcher. Something like:

obj.should_receive(:message).with(has_key_value(key, value))

The mock framework can use these just as the expectation framework -
though mocks rely on == instead of matches.

David
>
>
>
>
> --
> Josh Knowles
> joshknowles at gmail.com
> http://joshknowles.com
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:42 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>> As opposed to getting into complicated mocking scenarios, consider
>> abstracting this logic into your model:
>> http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2007/6/19/rspec-notes-from-the- 
>> trenches-2
>
> Agreed that this is a good approach in terms of dealing w/ rails
> models.
I generally agree with this, no doubt. But when the it comes to big  
apps and bigger test/spec suites, all that database communication  
(and fixtures creation/teardown), slows testruns downs and that  
lowers the chances of people running them regularly.
There''s of course many different ways of dealing with this (another  
I''m doing is reworking the way fixtures work), but in a way I see it  
the same way as I do with, say, XML-RPC models (or REST, or other  
networking related models) that I maybe I don''t really need to test  
communication with the network backend all the time, but more  
interested in that my model implementation behave like I expect them  
to when it comes to sending data to the client. Of course this starts  
to turn into a slightly slippery slope when it comes to rails since  
it relies so much its direct database mapping.

I''m still trying this approach out along with other things to cut  
down specs runtime , and I eagerly await the day it bites me in the  
arse. :)
> As for the question of isolating specific key/value pairs in a
> hash, you could do this:
>
> obj.should_receive(:message) do |*args|
>   hash = args.pop
>   hash[interesting_key].should == expected_value
> end
>
> It''s not pretty, but it works.
>
> The other thing you might consider is a custom matcher. Something  
> like:
>
> obj.should_receive(:message).with(has_key_value(key, value))
>
> The mock framework can use these just as the expectation framework -
> though mocks rely on == instead of matches.
Cheers, I didn''t know that you could do custom matchers for those  
kind of expectations too.

JS


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20070709/2f57838e/attachment-0001.html

On 7/9/07, Johan S?rensen <johan at johansorensen.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:42 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As opposed to getting into complicated mocking scenarios, consider
>
> abstracting this logic into your model:
>
> http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2007/6/19/rspec-notes-from-the-trenches-2
>
>
>
>
> Agreed that this is a good approach in terms of dealing w/ rails
>
> models.
>
> I generally agree with this, no doubt. But when the it comes to big apps
and
> bigger test/spec suites, all that database communication (and fixtures
> creation/teardown), slows testruns downs and that lowers the chances of
> people running them regularly.
> There''s of course many different ways of dealing with this
(another I''m
> doing is reworking the way fixtures work), but in a way I see it the same
> way as I do with, say, XML-RPC models (or REST, or other networking related
> models) that I maybe I don''t really need to test communication
with the
> network backend all the time, but more interested in that my model
> implementation behave like I expect them to when it comes to sending data
to
> the client. Of course this starts to turn into a slightly slippery slope
> when it comes to rails since it relies so much its direct database mapping.
>
> I''m still trying this approach out along with other things to cut
down specs
> runtime , and I eagerly await the day it bites me in the arse. :)
>
>
> As for the question of isolating specific key/value pairs in a
>
> hash, you could do this:
>
>
>
>
> obj.should_receive(:message) do |*args|
>
>   hash = args.pop
>
>   hash[interesting_key].should == expected_value
>
> end
>
>
>
>
> It''s not pretty, but it works.
>
>
>
>
> The other thing you might consider is a custom matcher. Something like:
>
>
>
>
> obj.should_receive(:message).with(has_key_value(key,
> value))
>
>
>
>
> The mock framework can use these just as the expectation framework -
>
> though mocks rely on == instead of matches.
> Cheers, I didn''t know that you could do custom matchers for those
kind of
> expectations too.
It''s not exactly widely publicized :) But that''s how
rspec''s own
anything, numeric, etc mock argument matchers work.
>
> JS
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

Hi Folks,

I think I''ve run into a problem after upgrading to edge rspec [revision
2160], but I''m not sure where to fix things.

Default controller specs that look like this:

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

describe PurchaseController do

   #Delete this example and add some real ones
   it "should use PurchaseController" do
     controller.should be_an_instance_of(PurchaseController)
   end

end

############################################################

are now causing errors like these:

############################################################
NameError in ''PurchaseController should use
PurchaseController''
undefined local variable or method `raise_controller_errors'' for [RSpec
example]:#<Class:0x69aa99c>
./spec/models/../spec_helper.rb:12:
############################################################

For the record, my spec_helper.rb is just the default generated one:

############################################################
ENV["RAILS_ENV"] = "test"
require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) +
"/../config/environment")
require ''spec/rails''

Spec::Runner.configure do |config|
   config.use_transactional_fixtures = true
   config.use_instantiated_fixtures  = false
   config.fixture_path = RAILS_ROOT + ''/spec/fixtures''
end
############################################################

Am I missing something in spec_helper.rb or do I have some residual 
stuff from a previous version of rspec? I''m pretty sure that
I''ve gotten
rid of the generated stuff, but could I be missing something?

Thanks,
Edward

Did you run "ruby script/generate rspec"?

http://rspec.rubyforge.org/upgrade.html

On 7/9/07, Edward Ocampo-Gooding <edward.og at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I think I''ve run into a problem after upgrading to edge rspec
[revision
> 2160], but I''m not sure where to fix things.
>
> Default controller specs that look like this:
>
> ############################################################
> require File.dirname(__FILE__) + ''/../spec_helper''
>
> describe PurchaseController do
>
>    #Delete this example and add some real ones
>    it "should use PurchaseController" do
>      controller.should be_an_instance_of(PurchaseController)
>    end
>
> end
>
> ############################################################
>
> are now causing errors like these:
>
> ############################################################
> NameError in ''PurchaseController should use
PurchaseController''
> undefined local variable or method `raise_controller_errors'' for
[RSpec
> example]:#<Class:0x69aa99c>
> ./spec/models/../spec_helper.rb:12:
> ############################################################
>
> For the record, my spec_helper.rb is just the default generated one:
>
> ############################################################
> ENV["RAILS_ENV"] = "test"
> require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) +
"/../config/environment")
> require ''spec/rails''
>
> Spec::Runner.configure do |config|
>    config.use_transactional_fixtures = true
>    config.use_instantiated_fixtures  = false
>    config.fixture_path = RAILS_ROOT + ''/spec/fixtures''
> end
> ############################################################
>
> Am I missing something in spec_helper.rb or do I have some residual
> stuff from a previous version of rspec? I''m pretty sure that
I''ve gotten
> rid of the generated stuff, but could I be missing something?
>
> Thanks,
> Edward
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

David Chelimsky wrote:
> Did you run "ruby script/generate rspec"?
Yep; but this time I let it regenerate spec.opts

Turns out that the --drb flag is the culprit.

I''ll file (or look for a similar) bug report.

Edward

On 7/9/07, Edward Ocampo-Gooding <edward.og at gmail.com>
wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
> > Did you run "ruby script/generate rspec"?
>
> Yep; but this time I let it regenerate spec.opts
>
> Turns out that the --drb flag is the culprit.
I don''t understand how --drb is related to this. You said you were
seeing a problem with a method that used to be in spec_helper.rb and
has been removed (raise_controller_errors). What does that have to do
with --drb?
>
> I''ll file (or look for a similar) bug report.
>
> Edward
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

David Chelimsky wrote:
> On 7/9/07, Edward Ocampo-Gooding <edward.og at gmail.com> wrote:
>> David Chelimsky wrote:
>>> Did you run "ruby script/generate rspec"?
>> Yep; but this time I let it regenerate spec.opts
>>
>> Turns out that the --drb flag is the culprit.
> 
> I don''t understand how --drb is related to this. You said you were
> seeing a problem with a method that used to be in spec_helper.rb and
> has been removed (raise_controller_errors). What does that have to do
> with --drb?
No, it''s always been a virgin generated spec_helper.rb file; I was just
wondering earlier if I was missing something in that.

I previously had --drb in my spec.opts and was having those "undefined 
local variable or method `raise_controller_errors''", but after
removing
--drb, everything works as expected.

Edward