rspec users - Feb 2008 - Test data problem (in general and with acts_as_tree)

Hi all

I''m having problems with data in my specs - i''m probably just
going about
things the wrong way though.

I''m testing a model (called Property) that uses acts_as_tree, and for
now
have just done some specs for the basic acts_as_tree functionality - just as
a sanity check, i thought, but i''m getting fails.

In a before(:all) block, i''m creating a bunch of objects and saving
them to
the database - like this:

describe Property, "with a fresh property tree" do
  before(:all) do
    @root = Property.new(:name => "Root")
    @root.id = 0 #root.id must be 0 for acts as tree to work properly
    @root.save
    @role = @root.children.create(:name => "Job Role")
    @dept = @root.children.create(:name => "Department")
    ...etc
  end

  describe ",standard acts_as_tree methods," do

    #this test is failing
    it "class.root" do
      Property.root.should eql(@root)
    end
  end

and the fail report from the above test:
''Property with a fresh property tree ,standard acts_as_tree methods,
class.root'' FAILED
expected #<Property id: 0, parent_id: nil, name: "Root">, got
#<Property id:
976, parent_id: nil, name: "Root"> (using .eql?)
./spec/models/property_spec.rb:50:
script/spec:4:



My problems seem to be arising from the fact that when i run the test, the
objects i created last time are still in the database.  Shouldn''t they
be
cleared out automatically?  This in turn is preventing me from saving root
with an id of 0.  If i test all of this stuff in the console it works fine,
but it''s failing in my tests, suggesting that my tests are broken.  Am
i
setting up my data in the wrong way?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20080226/3dcb43b4/attachment.html

> My problems seem to be arising from the fact that when i run the test, the
> objects i created last time are still in the database.  Shouldn''t
they be
> cleared out automatically?  This in turn is preventing me from saving root
I don''t know RSpec that well, but I''d guess before(:all) is
run only
once in a describe block (and as such torn down only after the block
is finished), whereas before(:each) is run before every example (and
torn down respectively). So, I guess you''ll want to use before(:each)
version.

Was that it?

-- 
"One day, when he was naughty, Mr Bunnsy looked over the hedge into
Farmer Fred''s field and it was full of fresh green lettuces. Mr
Bunnsy, however, was not full of lettuces. This did not seem fair."
  -- Terry Pratchett, Mr. Bunnsy Has An Adventure

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 5:41 AM, Edvard Majakari <edvard at majakari.net>
wrote:
> > My problems seem to be arising from the fact that when i run the test,
the
>  > objects i created last time are still in the database. 
Shouldn''t they be
>  > cleared out automatically?  This in turn is preventing me from saving
root
>
>  I don''t know RSpec that well, but I''d guess before(:all)
is run only
>  once in a describe block (and as such torn down only after the block
>  is finished), whereas before(:each) is run before every example (and
>  torn down respectively). So, I guess you''ll want to use
before(:each)
>  version.
>
>  Was that it?
Yep. Use before(:each) and all should be well.
>
>  --
>  "One day, when he was naughty, Mr Bunnsy looked over the hedge into
>  Farmer Fred''s field and it was full of fresh green lettuces. Mr
>  Bunnsy, however, was not full of lettuces. This did not seem fair."
>   -- Terry Pratchett, Mr. Bunnsy Has An Adventure
>  _______________________________________________
>  rspec-users mailing list
>  rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>  http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

I''m using before(:all) because i want to create a single
''family'' of tree
objects and then run tests against it.  If i have all the object creation as
a before(:each) then the database will be even more full of duplications,
won''t it?

My problem, though, is that the data is left over from the last time (in
fact all previous times) that i ran the spec file, where i thought that it
was cleared out.  Do i need to explicitly tell the database to clear all the
records in an ''after'' block?

On 26/02/2008, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 5:41 AM, Edvard Majakari <edvard at
majakari.net>
> wrote:
> > > My problems seem to be arising from the fact that when i run the
test,
> the
> >  > objects i created last time are still in the database. 
Shouldn''t
> they be
> >  > cleared out automatically?  This in turn is preventing me from
saving
> root
> >
> >  I don''t know RSpec that well, but I''d guess
before(:all) is run only
> >  once in a describe block (and as such torn down only after the block
> >  is finished), whereas before(:each) is run before every example (and
> >  torn down respectively). So, I guess you''ll want to use
before(:each)
> >  version.
> >
> >  Was that it?
>
>
> Yep. Use before(:each) and all should be well.
>
> >
> >  --
>
> >  "One day, when he was naughty, Mr Bunnsy looked over the hedge
into
> >  Farmer Fred''s field and it was full of fresh green lettuces.
Mr
> >  Bunnsy, however, was not full of lettuces. This did not seem
fair."
> >   -- Terry Pratchett, Mr. Bunnsy Has An Adventure
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20080226/14103881/attachment.html

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Max Williams
<toastkid.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
> I''m using before(:all) because i want to create a single
''family'' of tree
> objects and then run tests against it.  If i have all the object creation
as
> a before(:each) then the database will be even more full of duplications,
> won''t it?
No. If you have use_transactional_fixtures set to true, each example
is run in a transaction, which is rolled back at the end of the
example.

This does not happen for you implicitly when you use before(:all)
because there is no mechanism for running a group of examples in a
transaction.
> My problem, though, is that the data is left over from the last time (in
> fact all previous times) that i ran the spec file, where i thought that it
> was cleared out.  Do i need to explicitly tell the database to clear all
the
> records in an ''after'' block?
Yes.  If you want to use before(:all) to set up data, you need to use
after(:all) to clean it up explicitly.

Please beware that this approach is extremely error prone over time.
If you ever introduce a side effect (intentionally or accidentally)
that modifies the data, you''re going to look at the spec, see the data
you''re setting up and incorrectly think that that''s the data
every
example is using. It is much, much safer (and more sane) to use
before(:each) even though it may slow things down a bit.

HTH,
David
>
>
>
> On 26/02/2008, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 5:41 AM, Edvard Majakari <edvard at
majakari.net>
> wrote:
> > > > My problems seem to be arising from the fact that when i run
the test,
> the
> > >  > objects i created last time are still in the database. 
Shouldn''t
> they be
> > >  > cleared out automatically?  This in turn is preventing me
from saving
> root
> > >
> > >  I don''t know RSpec that well, but I''d guess
before(:all) is run only
> > >  once in a describe block (and as such torn down only after the
block
> > >  is finished), whereas before(:each) is run before every example
(and
> > >  torn down respectively). So, I guess you''ll want to use
before(:each)
> > >  version.
> > >
> > >  Was that it?
> >
> >
> > Yep. Use before(:each) and all should be well.
> >
> > >
> > >  --
> >
> > >  "One day, when he was naughty, Mr Bunnsy looked over the
hedge into
> > >  Farmer Fred''s field and it was full of fresh green
lettuces. Mr
> > >  Bunnsy, however, was not full of lettuces. This did not seem
fair."
> > >   -- Terry Pratchett, Mr. Bunnsy Has An Adventure
> > >  _______________________________________________
> > >  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
>

On 26/02/2008, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Max Williams
> <toastkid.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> This does not happen for you implicitly when you use before(:all)
> because there is no mechanism for running a group of examples in a
> transaction.

ah...i see.  I didn''t know about that last bit. :)
> My problem, though, is that the data is left over from the last time (in
> > fact all previous times) that i ran the spec file, where i thought
that
> it
> > was cleared out.  Do i need to explicitly tell the database to clear
all
> the
> > records in an ''after'' block?
>
>
> Yes.  If you want to use before(:all) to set up data, you need to use
> after(:all) to clean it up explicitly.
>
> Please beware that this approach is extremely error prone over time.
> If you ever introduce a side effect (intentionally or accidentally)
> that modifies the data, you''re going to look at the spec, see the
data
> you''re setting up and incorrectly think that that''s the
data every
> example is using. It is much, much safer (and more sane) to use
> before(:each) even though it may slow things down a bit.

Gotcha.  Thanks!

HTH,
>
> David
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20080226/070b194b/attachment-0001.html

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Max Williams
<toastkid.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 26/02/2008, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Max Williams
> > <toastkid.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > This does not happen for you implicitly when you use before(:all)
> > because there is no mechanism for running a group of examples in a
> > transaction.
>
> ah...i see.  I didn''t know about that last bit. :)
FYI: http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645-rspec/tickets/310

Cheers,
David
>
> > > My problem, though, is that the data is left over from the last
time (in
> > > fact all previous times) that i ran the spec file, where i
thought that
> it
> > > was cleared out.  Do i need to explicitly tell the database to
clear all
> the
> > > records in an ''after'' block?
> >
> >
> > Yes.  If you want to use before(:all) to set up data, you need to use
> > after(:all) to clean it up explicitly.
> >
> > Please beware that this approach is extremely error prone over time.
> > If you ever introduce a side effect (intentionally or accidentally)
> > that modifies the data, you''re going to look at the spec, see
the data
> > you''re setting up and incorrectly think that that''s
the data every
> > example is using. It is much, much safer (and more sane) to use
> > before(:each) even though it may slow things down a bit.
>
> Gotcha.  Thanks!
>
> > HTH,
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>  rspec-users mailing list
>  rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>  http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

hehe, tbh even if the documentation had been there i probably wouldn''t
have
read it :)

thanks!

On 26/02/2008, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Max Williams
>
> <toastkid.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 26/02/2008, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Max Williams
> > > <toastkid.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This does not happen for you implicitly when you use before(:all)
> > > because there is no mechanism for running a group of examples in
a
> > > transaction.
> >
> > ah...i see.  I didn''t know about that last bit. :)
>
>
> FYI: http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645-rspec/tickets/310
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
>
> >
> > > > My problem, though, is that the data is left over from the
last time
> (in
> > > > fact all previous times) that i ran the spec file, where i
thought
> that
> > it
> > > > was cleared out.  Do i need to explicitly tell the database
to clear
> all
> > the
> > > > records in an ''after'' block?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes.  If you want to use before(:all) to set up data, you need to
use
> > > after(:all) to clean it up explicitly.
> > >
> > > Please beware that this approach is extremely error prone over
time.
> > > If you ever introduce a side effect (intentionally or
accidentally)
> > > that modifies the data, you''re going to look at the
spec, see the data
> > > you''re setting up and incorrectly think that
that''s the data every
> > > example is using. It is much, much safer (and more sane) to use
> > > before(:each) even though it may slow things down a bit.
> >
> > Gotcha.  Thanks!
> >
> > > HTH,
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> >  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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20080226/1b9dfbd4/attachment.html

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Max Williams
<toastkid.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
> hehe, tbh even if the documentation had been there i probably
wouldn''t have
> read it :)
Yeah but then I get to say RTFM. Right now, TFM doesn''t exist :(
>
> thanks!
>
>
>
> On 26/02/2008, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Max Williams
> >
> > <toastkid.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 26/02/2008, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Max Williams
> > > > <toastkid.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This does not happen for you implicitly when you use
before(:all)
> > > > because there is no mechanism for running a group of
examples in a
> > > > transaction.
> > >
> > > ah...i see.  I didn''t know about that last bit. :)
> >
> >
> > FYI: http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645-rspec/tickets/310
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > > My problem, though, is that the data is left over from
the last time
> (in
> > > > > fact all previous times) that i ran the spec file,
where i thought
> that
> > > it
> > > > > was cleared out.  Do i need to explicitly tell the
database to clear
> all
> > > the
> > > > > records in an ''after'' block?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes.  If you want to use before(:all) to set up data, you
need to use
> > > > after(:all) to clean it up explicitly.
> > > >
> > > > Please beware that this approach is extremely error prone
over time.
> > > > If you ever introduce a side effect (intentionally or
accidentally)
> > > > that modifies the data, you''re going to look at the
spec, see the data
> > > > you''re setting up and incorrectly think that
that''s the data every
> > > > example is using. It is much, much safer (and more sane) to
use
> > > > before(:each) even though it may slow things down a bit.
> > >
> > > Gotcha.  Thanks!
> > >
> > > > HTH,
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >  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
>

>  Yeah but then I get to say RTFM. Right now, TFM doesn''t exist :(
rant << EOF

Indeed. People see much trouble in writing documentation so that they
don''t have to answer the same questions ad nauseam.
It would be nice if we appreciated their efforts and check the
documentation first.

EOF

-- 
"One day, when he was naughty, Mr Bunnsy looked over the hedge into
Farmer Fred''s field and it was full of fresh green lettuces. Mr
Bunnsy, however, was not full of lettuces. This did not seem fair."
  -- Terry Pratchett, Mr. Bunnsy Has An Adventure