rspec users - Oct 2007 - Specs and Libs

How would I go about writing specs for a lib, particularly one with  
all protected and private methods.  I''m trying to spec the  
AuthenticatedSystem library from the rails restful_authentication  
plugin:
pastie.caboo.se/103625

Also, when you''re mocking objects, a side-effect is helping you  
define the api of the object.  Is there a way to get all the  
behaviors that have been mocked for a class and its objects?  Is  
there a way to automagically compare the output against what is  
actually defined?

Thanks,

Nate "fowlduck" Sutton

On 10/4/07, Nathan Sutton <nathan.sutton at gmail.com>
wrote:
> How would I go about writing specs for a lib, particularly one with
> all protected and private methods.  I''m trying to spec the
> AuthenticatedSystem library from the rails restful_authentication
> plugin:
> pastie.caboo.se/103625
I think there are a few ways you can handle this. One would be to
create a class that includes that module and add public methods to
that class that access the protected ones:

class ExampleController
  include AuthenticatedSystem
  def has_logged_in_user?
    logged_in?
  end
end

controller.should_not have_logged_in_user
log_in #waving hands...
controller.should have_logged_in_user

Other possibilities would be to use instance_eval or make the methods
public from the example using send(:public, :logged_in?). I to avoid
that sort of thing when I''m developing code spec-first, but in the
case of back-filling specs on existing code I don''t mind using brute
force like that. It''s brittle, and in the end I might want to change
the design, but not until I''ve got it fairly well covered so I can
refactor in peace.
>
> Also, when you''re mocking objects, a side-effect is helping you
> define the api of the object.
Actually, I think that''s the whole point of mock objects and not a
side effect at all. If anything, the side-effect is isolation :)
> Is there a way to get all the
> behaviors that have been mocked for a class and its objects?  Is
> there a way to automagically compare the output against what is
> actually defined?
Mocha allows you to do this using responds_like:

account = mock(''Account'').responds_like(Account)
account.expects(:withdraw)

If account does not respond_to?(:withdraw), then you get a failure.

Personally, I never use this. In practice, it means that every time I
say object_i_am_NOT_defining_right_now.expects(:method_that_does_not_exist_yet)
I have to stop what I''m working on and add this method to the real
object. In the best case scenario, I''m disciplined about it and I
start writing specs for the new behaviour - completely losing the
context I was just in. In the less-than-best-case scenario, I''m not as
disciplined and I just add an empty method declaration in order to
quiet the noise. Neither case is desirable for me.

We''ve batted the idea of adding support for something like this to
rspec''s mock framework, but with a command line switch to turn it on
(default behaviour would be that it stays quiet). There''s an open RFE
for this in the tracker. I''m just not sure that it''s worth the
trouble
when you consider the implications of behaviour getting added at
runtime and the like.

FWIW,
David
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nate "fowlduck" Sutton
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On Oct 4, 2007, at 6:24 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On 10/4/07, Nathan Sutton <nathan.sutton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> How would I go about writing specs for a lib, particularly one with
>> all protected and private methods.  I''m trying to spec the
>> AuthenticatedSystem library from the rails restful_authentication
>> plugin:
>> pastie.caboo.se/103625
>
> I think there are a few ways you can handle this. One would be to
> create a class that includes that module and add public methods to
> that class that access the protected ones:
>
> class ExampleController
>   include AuthenticatedSystem
>   def has_logged_in_user?
>     logged_in?
>   end
> end
>
> controller.should_not have_logged_in_user
> log_in #waving hands...
> controller.should have_logged_in_user
>
> Other possibilities would be to use instance_eval or make the methods
> public from the example using send(:public, :logged_in?). I to avoid
> that sort of thing when I''m developing code spec-first, but in the
> case of back-filling specs on existing code I don''t mind using
brute
> force like that. It''s brittle, and in the end I might want to
change
> the design, but not until I''ve got it fairly well covered so I can
> refactor in peace.
>
>>
>> Also, when you''re mocking objects, a side-effect is helping
you
>> define the api of the object.
>
> Actually, I think that''s the whole point of mock objects and not a
> side effect at all. If anything, the side-effect is isolation :)
>
>> Is there a way to get all the
>> behaviors that have been mocked for a class and its objects?  Is
>> there a way to automagically compare the output against what is
>> actually defined?
>
> Mocha allows you to do this using responds_like:
>
> account = mock(''Account'').responds_like(Account)
> account.expects(:withdraw)
>
> If account does not respond_to?(:withdraw), then you get a failure.
>
> Personally, I never use this. In practice, it means that every time I
> say object_i_am_NOT_defining_right_now.expects 
> (:method_that_does_not_exist_yet)
> I have to stop what I''m working on and add this method to the real
> object. In the best case scenario, I''m disciplined about it and I
> start writing specs for the new behaviour - completely losing the
> context I was just in. In the less-than-best-case scenario, I''m
not as
> disciplined and I just add an empty method declaration in order to
> quiet the noise. Neither case is desirable for me.
>
> We''ve batted the idea of adding support for something like this to
> rspec''s mock framework, but with a command line switch to turn it
on
> (default behaviour would be that it stays quiet). There''s an open
RFE
> for this in the tracker. I''m just not sure that it''s
worth the trouble
> when you consider the implications of behaviour getting added at
> runtime and the like.
>
> FWIW,
> David
Well, really, I wouldn''t want it to behave any differently, I would  
just like a way to, at some point, check that I''m actually  
implementing them all, in case I forgot something.  Raising  
exceptions and errors would be unacceptable, I agree. Also if I  
decide to remove a method and a spec in the future and I overlook  
that one spec that uses that method, it would be nice to know.  I  
know integration testing should pick this up, but even if it did then  
this would be useful as a diagnostic tool.

Nate
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Nate "fowlduck" Sutton
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>> rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

Since it''s a plugin, then I would not spec it, and spec the files that
use
it instead.

Jim Deville

On 10/4/07, Nathan Sutton <nathan.sutton at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> How would I go about writing specs for a lib, particularly one with
> all protected and private methods.  I''m trying to spec the
> AuthenticatedSystem library from the rails restful_authentication
> plugin:
> pastie.caboo.se/103625
>
> Also, when you''re mocking objects, a side-effect is helping you
> define the api of the object.  Is there a way to get all the
> behaviors that have been mocked for a class and its objects?  Is
> there a way to automagically compare the output against what is
> actually defined?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nate "fowlduck" Sutton
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20071005/0c0a9093/attachment.html

AuthenticatedSystem library has tests already written for it.
Just as Jim said you needn''t write specs for it.

But if you did want to write spec''s for the AuthenticatedSystem then
you''d
create a directory inside the plugin directory with all the other directory
and files pointing the paths to the files you want to spec.

I''m sure it would be good practice to write spec''s for a
plugin but like Jim
said its practice to assume that the plugin should work.

On 10/5/07, James Deville <james.deville at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Since it''s a plugin, then I would not spec it, and spec the files
that use
> it instead.
>
> Jim Deville
>
> On 10/4/07, Nathan Sutton < nathan.sutton at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > How would I go about writing specs for a lib, particularly one with
> > all protected and private methods.  I''m trying to spec the
> > AuthenticatedSystem library from the rails restful_authentication
> > plugin:
> > pastie.caboo.se/103625
> >
> > Also, when you''re mocking objects, a side-effect is helping
you
> > define the api of the object.  Is there a way to get all the
> > behaviors that have been mocked for a class and its objects?  Is
> > there a way to automagically compare the output against what is
> > actually defined?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Nate "fowlduck" Sutton
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20071005/7bbd00ff/attachment.html

> > On 10/4/07, Nathan Sutton < nathan.sutton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > How would I go about writing specs for a lib, particularly one
with
> > > all protected and private methods.  I''m trying to spec
the
> > > AuthenticatedSystem library from the rails restful_authentication
> > > plugin:
> > > pastie.caboo.se/103625
I have speced AuthenticatedSystem in my own auth plugin:

acts-as-authentable.googlecode.com

Could act as a staring point for your endeavors.

-- 
Cheers,
Eivind Uggedal
Engineer,
Faculty of Social Science,
MSc Computer Science,
University of Oslo