I recently wrote a matcher for testing AR associations which allows
you to specify things like:
Foo.should have_many(:bars).through(:bazes)
I''m pretty darned proud of it and a couple of people have suggested
that I should submit it to the rspec_on_rails project. Before I go to
the trouble of writing out rdoc and fully spec''ing it, I just wanted
to make sure this was something the community would like.
Instead of pasting in the code into the email, I thought I''d just make
a pastie and let those interested read it there:
http://pastie.caboo.se/108922
I think it would make a nice addition to the current Rails matchers.
Here''s hoping you do too.
RSL
I would like it :-) On 19 Oct 2007, at 19:45 19 Oct 2007, Russell Norris wrote:> I recently wrote a matcher for testing AR associations which allows > you to specify things like: > > Foo.should have_many(:bars).through(:bazes) > > I''m pretty darned proud of it and a couple of people have suggested > that I should submit it to the rspec_on_rails project. Before I go to > the trouble of writing out rdoc and fully spec''ing it, I just wanted > to make sure this was something the community would like. > > Instead of pasting in the code into the email, I thought I''d just make > a pastie and let those interested read it there: > http://pastie.caboo.se/108922 > > I think it would make a nice addition to the current Rails matchers. > Here''s hoping you do too. > > RSL > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
We have a similar one, which works like: Foo.should have_association(:has_many, :conditions => "stuff", :through => :bazes) we started off with should have_many etc, but it became overcomplicated with all the various things that you may want - so we changed to have_association to make it simpler and ensure it will work with any/all association options http://pastie.caboo.se/108976 Russell Norris wrote:> I recently wrote a matcher for testing AR associations which allows > you to specify things like: > > Foo.should have_many(:bars).through(:bazes) > > I''m pretty darned proud of it and a couple of people have suggested > that I should submit it to the rspec_on_rails project. Before I go to > the trouble of writing out rdoc and fully spec''ing it, I just wanted > to make sure this was something the community would like. > > Instead of pasting in the code into the email, I thought I''d just make > a pastie and let those interested read it there: > http://pastie.caboo.se/108922 > > I think it would make a nice addition to the current Rails matchers. > Here''s hoping you do too. > > RSL > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
I''ve been using a set of matchers that does this plus adds more AR basic matchers (such as validate_presence_of, etc.. - by testing the behavior.) I got the base of my matchers from this blog: http://spicycode.com/2007/4/2/rspec-expecation-matchers-part-ii I would think that something like this should be worked into rpsec_on_rails. Because it makes testing AR behavior very easy and painless. One line of code = One line of test code. -Ben Jerrett Taylor wrote:> We have a similar one, which works like: > > > Foo.should have_association(:has_many, :conditions => "stuff", :through > => :bazes) > > we started off with should have_many etc, but it became overcomplicated > with all the various things that you may want - so we changed to > have_association to make it simpler and ensure it will work with any/all > association options > > http://pastie.caboo.se/108976 > > > > > > Russell Norris wrote: > >> I recently wrote a matcher for testing AR associations which allows >> you to specify things like: >> >> Foo.should have_many(:bars).through(:bazes) >> >> I''m pretty darned proud of it and a couple of people have suggested >> that I should submit it to the rspec_on_rails project. Before I go to >> the trouble of writing out rdoc and fully spec''ing it, I just wanted >> to make sure this was something the community would like. >> >> Instead of pasting in the code into the email, I thought I''d just make >> a pastie and let those interested read it there: >> http://pastie.caboo.se/108922 >> >> I think it would make a nice addition to the current Rails matchers. >> Here''s hoping you do too. >> >> RSL >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
sorry.. I meant to say "spec code". :) Ben Mabey wrote:> I''ve been using a set of matchers that does this plus adds more AR basic > matchers (such as validate_presence_of, etc.. - by testing the > behavior.) I got the base of my matchers from this blog: > http://spicycode.com/2007/4/2/rspec-expecation-matchers-part-ii > > I would think that something like this should be worked into > rpsec_on_rails. Because it makes testing AR behavior very easy and > painless. One line of code = One line of test code. > > -Ben > > Jerrett Taylor wrote: > >> We have a similar one, which works like: >> >> >> Foo.should have_association(:has_many, :conditions => "stuff", :through >> => :bazes) >> >> we started off with should have_many etc, but it became overcomplicated >> with all the various things that you may want - so we changed to >> have_association to make it simpler and ensure it will work with any/all >> association options >> >> http://pastie.caboo.se/108976 >> >> >> >> >> >> Russell Norris wrote: >> >> >>> I recently wrote a matcher for testing AR associations which allows >>> you to specify things like: >>> >>> Foo.should have_many(:bars).through(:bazes) >>> >>> I''m pretty darned proud of it and a couple of people have suggested >>> that I should submit it to the rspec_on_rails project. Before I go to >>> the trouble of writing out rdoc and fully spec''ing it, I just wanted >>> to make sure this was something the community would like. >>> >>> Instead of pasting in the code into the email, I thought I''d just make >>> a pastie and let those interested read it there: >>> http://pastie.caboo.se/108922 >>> >>> I think it would make a nice addition to the current Rails matchers. >>> Here''s hoping you do too. >>> >>> RSL >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >
Ben, I actually looked through yr code when coming up with this idea but tried to take it one notch "cooler", i guess. with the whole has_many(:foos).through(:bars) part. RSL On 10/19/07, Ben Mabey <ben at benmabey.com> wrote:> I''ve been using a set of matchers that does this plus adds more AR basic > matchers (such as validate_presence_of, etc.. - by testing the > behavior.) I got the base of my matchers from this blog: > http://spicycode.com/2007/4/2/rspec-expecation-matchers-part-ii > > I would think that something like this should be worked into > rpsec_on_rails. Because it makes testing AR behavior very easy and > painless. One line of code = One line of test code. > > -Ben > > Jerrett Taylor wrote: > > We have a similar one, which works like: > > > > > > Foo.should have_association(:has_many, :conditions => "stuff", :through > > => :bazes) > > > > we started off with should have_many etc, but it became overcomplicated > > with all the various things that you may want - so we changed to > > have_association to make it simpler and ensure it will work with any/all > > association options > > > > http://pastie.caboo.se/108976 > > > > > > > > > > > > Russell Norris wrote: > > > >> I recently wrote a matcher for testing AR associations which allows > >> you to specify things like: > >> > >> Foo.should have_many(:bars).through(:bazes) > >> > >> I''m pretty darned proud of it and a couple of people have suggested > >> that I should submit it to the rspec_on_rails project. Before I go to > >> the trouble of writing out rdoc and fully spec''ing it, I just wanted > >> to make sure this was something the community would like. > >> > >> Instead of pasting in the code into the email, I thought I''d just make > >> a pastie and let those interested read it there: > >> http://pastie.caboo.se/108922 > >> > >> I think it would make a nice addition to the current Rails matchers. > >> Here''s hoping you do too. > >> > >> RSL > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 >
Cool. Well, it actually wasn''t my code to begin with. I like the extension you have done, though, and will integrate it into the current set of matchers I''m using (I have done some tweaks of my own to the original code.) Thanks. -Ben Russell Norris wrote:> Ben, I actually looked through yr code when coming up with this idea > but tried to take it one notch "cooler", i guess. with the whole > has_many(:foos).through(:bars) part. > > RSL > > On 10/19/07, Ben Mabey <ben at benmabey.com> wrote: > >> I''ve been using a set of matchers that does this plus adds more AR basic >> matchers (such as validate_presence_of, etc.. - by testing the >> behavior.) I got the base of my matchers from this blog: >> http://spicycode.com/2007/4/2/rspec-expecation-matchers-part-ii >> >> I would think that something like this should be worked into >> rpsec_on_rails. Because it makes testing AR behavior very easy and >> painless. One line of code = One line of test code. >> >> -Ben >> >> Jerrett Taylor wrote: >> >>> We have a similar one, which works like: >>> >>> >>> Foo.should have_association(:has_many, :conditions => "stuff", :through >>> => :bazes) >>> >>> we started off with should have_many etc, but it became overcomplicated >>> with all the various things that you may want - so we changed to >>> have_association to make it simpler and ensure it will work with any/all >>> association options >>> >>> http://pastie.caboo.se/108976 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Russell Norris wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I recently wrote a matcher for testing AR associations which allows >>>> you to specify things like: >>>> >>>> Foo.should have_many(:bars).through(:bazes) >>>> >>>> I''m pretty darned proud of it and a couple of people have suggested >>>> that I should submit it to the rspec_on_rails project. Before I go to >>>> the trouble of writing out rdoc and fully spec''ing it, I just wanted >>>> to make sure this was something the community would like. >>>> >>>> Instead of pasting in the code into the email, I thought I''d just make >>>> a pastie and let those interested read it there: >>>> http://pastie.caboo.se/108922 >>>> >>>> I think it would make a nice addition to the current Rails matchers. >>>> Here''s hoping you do too. >>>> >>>> RSL >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
I can see the good in simplicity there. I just liked the ability to say Foo.has_many(:bars).through(:foobars) in such a readable way. I did write methodology for a more terse listing of the options as Foo.has_many(:bars).with_options(:through => :bars) etc. RSL On 10/19/07, Jerrett Taylor <jerrett at bravenet.com> wrote:> We have a similar one, which works like: > > > Foo.should have_association(:has_many, :conditions => "stuff", :through > => :bazes) > > we started off with should have_many etc, but it became overcomplicated > with all the various things that you may want - so we changed to > have_association to make it simpler and ensure it will work with any/all > association options > > http://pastie.caboo.se/108976 > > > > > > Russell Norris wrote: > > I recently wrote a matcher for testing AR associations which allows > > you to specify things like: > > > > Foo.should have_many(:bars).through(:bazes) > > > > I''m pretty darned proud of it and a couple of people have suggested > > that I should submit it to the rspec_on_rails project. Before I go to > > the trouble of writing out rdoc and fully spec''ing it, I just wanted > > to make sure this was something the community would like. > > > > Instead of pasting in the code into the email, I thought I''d just make > > a pastie and let those interested read it there: > > http://pastie.caboo.se/108922 > > > > I think it would make a nice addition to the current Rails matchers. > > Here''s hoping you do too. > > > > RSL > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >
On 10/19/07, Ben Mabey <ben at benmabey.com> wrote:> I would think that something like this should be worked into > rpsec_on_rails. Because it makes testing AR behavior very easy and > painless. One line of code = One line of test code.I''d be hesitant to include it in rspec_on_rails. I don''t really see this as testing AR *behaviour* at all. It''s pure structure. To me this is no different than specifying that a Group should have an Array of Users. And the reason we don''t want to specify that is that if we decide to change the Array to a Hash internally, without affecting Group''s methods, then we''d have to change the specs. But I''d encourage you to publish this as a gem or plugin. I''m sure a lot of people would like to use it, in spite of my opinions. Cheers, David
David Chelimsky wrote:> On 10/19/07, Ben Mabey <ben at benmabey.com> wrote: > >> I would think that something like this should be worked into >> rpsec_on_rails. Because it makes testing AR behavior very easy and >> painless. One line of code = One line of test code. >> > > I''d be hesitant to include it in rspec_on_rails. I don''t really see > this as testing AR *behaviour* at all. It''s pure structure. To me this > is no different than specifying that a Group should have an Array of > Users. And the reason we don''t want to specify that is that if we > decide to change the Array to a Hash internally, without affecting > Group''s methods, then we''d have to change the specs. > > But I''d encourage you to publish this as a gem or plugin. I''m sure a > lot of people would like to use it, in spite of my opinions. > > Cheers, > David > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >Ok, well, when I said it tests AR behavior I referring to the other AR matchers and not the association matchers that we are talking about. Sorry for the confusion. This is a better example of what I mean: http://pastie.caboo.se/109016 In this pastie we are actually testing the behavior for validate_presence_for, would you agree? I can understand your hesitation about the association matchers but do you have similar reservations about having matchers that test the behavior of rails validations? I know that this topic comes up on the list at least every other week. And it is the same argument time after time: You can mock the class out and make sure it receives the the validation call.. but doing it that way does not actually test the behavior... well it isn''t our code so we shouldn''t be testing it... but it is an important part of that model''s behaviour that needs a spec for... etc... Would including default validation matchers in rails_on_rspec be a bad thing just because of the difference of opinions on it? I think it would be helpful to include them in rspec_on_rails, WDYT? Thanks, Ben
On 10/19/07, Ben Mabey <ben at benmabey.com> wrote:> David Chelimsky wrote: > > On 10/19/07, Ben Mabey <ben at benmabey.com> wrote: > > > >> I would think that something like this should be worked into > >> rpsec_on_rails. Because it makes testing AR behavior very easy and > >> painless. One line of code = One line of test code. > >> > > > > I''d be hesitant to include it in rspec_on_rails. I don''t really see > > this as testing AR *behaviour* at all. It''s pure structure. To me this > > is no different than specifying that a Group should have an Array of > > Users. And the reason we don''t want to specify that is that if we > > decide to change the Array to a Hash internally, without affecting > > Group''s methods, then we''d have to change the specs. > > > > But I''d encourage you to publish this as a gem or plugin. I''m sure a > > lot of people would like to use it, in spite of my opinions.<snip>> Ok, well, when I said it tests AR behavior I referring to the other AR > matchers and not the association matchers that we are talking about. > Sorry for the confusion. This is a better example of what I mean: > http://pastie.caboo.se/109016 > > In this pastie we are actually testing the behavior for > validate_presence_for, would you agree?I do agree that what''s inside the matcher looks right, but the fact that you invoke it with validates_presence_of is a bit misleading in that case. If I don''t look at the implementation of the matcher, I would assume that it validates the declaration. So, perhaps, this would be closer to the mark with different words like require: @user.should require(:email).with_warning_message("can''t be blank") or something like that. I''ve actually got the following in one of my projects: @user.should reject(nil).for(:email) @user.should reject("this is not an email").for(:email) @user.should accept("this.might.be.an at email.com").for(:email) I kind of like that too.> I can understand your > hesitation about the association matchers but do you have similar > reservations about having matchers that test the behavior of rails > validations?I do have less reservation about that, yes. However, there are a number of solutions that people have come up with and until I have time to look at a bunch of them and use them myself to get a sense of how they feel in process, I''m probably not going to add them. Why not just publish it yourself?> > I know that this topic comes up on the list at least every other week. > And it is the same argument time after time: You can mock the class out > and make sure it receives the the validation call.. but doing it that > way does not actually test the behavior... well it isn''t our code so we > shouldn''t be testing it... but it is an important part of that model''s > behaviour that needs a spec for... etc... Would including default > validation matchers in rails_on_rspec be a bad thing just because of the > difference of opinions on it?Yes it would absolutely be a bad thing. Until we decide what is the right approach from a BDD perspective, it is completely inappropriate for rspec to be endorsing any one approach. On the flip side, as I said above, there''s nothing stopping you and Russell from publishing your libraries as gems or plugins. Let people try them out. That''s part of the reason we made matchers so cleanly decoupled from the rest of rspec - anybody can publish libraries and just plug them right in. I appreciate your desire to share w/ the group, and that is a good way to do it. I hope you understand my reasoning for not wanting to add something like this, at least for the time being. Cheers, David
Thanks for the response. I understand your reasoning, especially about the whole BDD approach being an unproven/agreed on. And yes, you have made it really easy to make and distribute custom matchers. So thank you! I''ll keep these extra matchers as a plugin for now. -Ben David Chelimsky wrote:> On 10/19/07, Ben Mabey <ben at benmabey.com> wrote: > >> David Chelimsky wrote: >> >>> On 10/19/07, Ben Mabey <ben at benmabey.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I would think that something like this should be worked into >>>> rpsec_on_rails. Because it makes testing AR behavior very easy and >>>> painless. One line of code = One line of test code. >>>> >>>> >>> I''d be hesitant to include it in rspec_on_rails. I don''t really see >>> this as testing AR *behaviour* at all. It''s pure structure. To me this >>> is no different than specifying that a Group should have an Array of >>> Users. And the reason we don''t want to specify that is that if we >>> decide to change the Array to a Hash internally, without affecting >>> Group''s methods, then we''d have to change the specs. >>> >>> But I''d encourage you to publish this as a gem or plugin. I''m sure a >>> lot of people would like to use it, in spite of my opinions. >>> > > <snip> > > >> Ok, well, when I said it tests AR behavior I referring to the other AR >> matchers and not the association matchers that we are talking about. >> Sorry for the confusion. This is a better example of what I mean: >> http://pastie.caboo.se/109016 >> >> In this pastie we are actually testing the behavior for >> validate_presence_for, would you agree? >> > > I do agree that what''s inside the matcher looks right, but the fact > that you invoke it with validates_presence_of is a bit misleading in > that case. If I don''t look at the implementation of the matcher, I > would assume that it validates the declaration. So, perhaps, this > would be closer to the mark with different words like require: > > @user.should require(:email).with_warning_message("can''t be blank") > > or something like that. I''ve actually got the following in one of my projects: > > @user.should reject(nil).for(:email) > @user.should reject("this is not an email").for(:email) > @user.should accept("this.might.be.an at email.com").for(:email) > > I kind of like that too. > > >> I can understand your >> hesitation about the association matchers but do you have similar >> reservations about having matchers that test the behavior of rails >> validations? >> > > I do have less reservation about that, yes. However, there are a > number of solutions that people have come up with and until I have > time to look at a bunch of them and use them myself to get a sense of > how they feel in process, I''m probably not going to add them. > > Why not just publish it yourself? > > >> I know that this topic comes up on the list at least every other week. >> And it is the same argument time after time: You can mock the class out >> and make sure it receives the the validation call.. but doing it that >> way does not actually test the behavior... well it isn''t our code so we >> shouldn''t be testing it... but it is an important part of that model''s >> behaviour that needs a spec for... etc... Would including default >> validation matchers in rails_on_rspec be a bad thing just because of the >> difference of opinions on it? >> > > Yes it would absolutely be a bad thing. Until we decide what is the > right approach from a BDD perspective, it is completely inappropriate > for rspec to be endorsing any one approach. > > On the flip side, as I said above, there''s nothing stopping you and > Russell from publishing your libraries as gems or plugins. Let people > try them out. That''s part of the reason we made matchers so cleanly > decoupled from the rest of rspec - anybody can publish libraries and > just plug them right in. > > I appreciate your desire to share w/ the group, and that is a good way > to do it. I hope you understand my reasoning for not wanting to add > something like this, at least for the time being. > > Cheers, > David > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >