Hi guys,
I''m just beginning to use RSpec and I ran into the issue of testing a
named_scope. I''m not actually trying to test its behavior, as
it''s not
my code, but I wanted to test at least that it''s defined. I tried
doing this:
describe Post, ".most_recent" do
it "should be defined" do
Post.method_defined?(:most_recent).should be_true
end
end
But it always fails, even though it *is* defined. Any idea on how to test this?
Thanks a lot!
Cheers,
--
Helder Ribeiro
ProFUSION
Embedded Systems
http://profusion.mobi
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders" -- Jeff Goll
On May 13, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Helder Ribeiro wrote:> I''m not actually trying to test its behavior,quick! Duck! INCOMING...!!!!!
On 5/13/08, Jonathan Linowes <jonathan at parkerhill.com> wrote:> > On May 13, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Helder Ribeiro wrote: > > > I''m not actually trying to test its behavior, > > > quick! Duck! INCOMING...!!!!! > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >I wonder why OP doesn''t create two records, call #most_recent, and verify that the record returned is the one with the larger timestamp. If the code is "not yours" (and I think you ought to clarify what you mean by that), then you should be testing it at a higher level instead of directly. Pat
On 5/13/08, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:> On 5/13/08, Jonathan Linowes <jonathan at parkerhill.com> wrote: > > > > On May 13, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Helder Ribeiro wrote: > > > > > I''m not actually trying to test its behavior, > > > > > > quick! Duck! INCOMING...!!!!! > > _______________________________________________ > > rspec-users mailing list > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > > > > I wonder why OP doesn''t create two records, call #most_recent, and > verify that the record returned is the one with the larger timestamp. > > If the code is "not yours" (and I think you ought to clarify what you > mean by that), then you should be testing it at a higher level instead > of directly. > > Pat >The other answer to your question is that #method_defined looks at the instance methods. To do what you want, you should do Foo.singleton_methods.should include("most_recent") Pat
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:> > > I wonder why OP doesn''t create two records, call #most_recent, and > verify that the record returned is the one with the larger timestamp.I''m sorry about the confusion here. Your idea sounds indeed better (I''ll explain below).> > If the code is "not yours" (and I think you ought to clarify what you > mean by that), then you should be testing it at a higher level instead > of directly.As I said, I''m not very familiar with specs and stuff, and I''ve read repeatedly on this list and other places that one should only test one''s own code. That is, if you declare a has_many association, you shouldn''t test that the methods actually return the proper model objects, etc., because that would be testing ActiveRecord. In that same spirit, I thought I shouldn''t test that a named_scope does what it''s supposed to, only that it is declared (because that one line is all I wrote myself). But I guess I got a bit carried away, as in that declaration there is stuff besides the declaration itself, namely, the bit specifying the order. So it would be better to test for that, rather than just testing if it was declared or not. Thanks a lot for your help :)> > Pat > > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >-- Helder Ribeiro ProFUSION Embedded Systems http://profusion.mobi "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders" -- Jeff Goll
Oi Helder, On May 13, 2008, at 9:14 PM, Helder Ribeiro wrote:> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> I wonder why OP doesn''t create two records, call #most_recent, and >> verify that the record returned is the one with the larger timestamp. > > I''m sorry about the confusion here. Your idea sounds indeed better > (I''ll explain below). > >> >> If the code is "not yours" (and I think you ought to clarify what you >> mean by that), then you should be testing it at a higher level >> instead >> of directly. > > As I said, I''m not very familiar with specs and stuff, and I''ve read > repeatedly on this list and other places that one should only test > one''s own code. That is, if you declare a has_many association, you > shouldn''t test that the methods actually return the proper model > objects, etc., because that would be testing ActiveRecord. In that > same spirit, I thought I shouldn''t test that a named_scope does what > it''s supposed to, only that it is declared (because that one line is > all I wrote myself).You''re thinking of this backwards. You are trying to test that you''re using a specific method rather than expecting a behaviour. Specs are about behaviour. You''re trying to backfill them against implementation. The behaviour you expect is to find the most recent posts, so that''s what the example should expect. The fact that you''re implementing that (which should happen after you write the example, not before) with named_scope instead of defining a method is an implementation detail. If you decide later that, for whatever reason, you want to change the implementation to a defined method, this example will still pass - or fail if you do the wrong thing. That''s the whole point for executable examples. They encourage you to write the code you need and only the code you need, and then later they let you know whether changes you make to implementation preserve the behaviour that you are expecting. That all make sense? Tchau, David ps - eu acho que voc? ? brasileiro ou portugu?s por causa do seu nome - n??> But I guess I got a bit carried away, as in that declaration there is > stuff besides the declaration itself, namely, the bit specifying the > order. So it would be better to test for that, rather than just > testing if it was declared or not. > > Thanks a lot for your help :) > > >> >> Pat >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rspec-users mailing list >> rspec-users at rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >> > > > > -- > Helder Ribeiro > > ProFUSION > Embedded Systems > http://profusion.mobi > > "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were > standing on my shoulders" -- Jeff Goll > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:50 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:> Oi Helder,Opa, beleza? :)> > On May 13, 2008, at 9:14 PM, Helder Ribeiro wrote: > >> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I wonder why OP doesn''t create two records, call #most_recent, and >>> verify that the record returned is the one with the larger timestamp. >> >> I''m sorry about the confusion here. Your idea sounds indeed better >> (I''ll explain below). >> >>> >>> If the code is "not yours" (and I think you ought to clarify what you >>> mean by that), then you should be testing it at a higher level instead >>> of directly. >> >> As I said, I''m not very familiar with specs and stuff, and I''ve read >> repeatedly on this list and other places that one should only test >> one''s own code. That is, if you declare a has_many association, you >> shouldn''t test that the methods actually return the proper model >> objects, etc., because that would be testing ActiveRecord. In that >> same spirit, I thought I shouldn''t test that a named_scope does what >> it''s supposed to, only that it is declared (because that one line is >> all I wrote myself). > > You''re thinking of this backwards. You are trying to test that you''re using > a specific method rather than expecting a behaviour. Specs are about > behaviour. You''re trying to backfill them against implementation. > > The behaviour you expect is to find the most recent posts, so that''s what > the example should expect. The fact that you''re implementing that (which > should happen after you write the example, not before) with named_scope > instead of defining a method is an implementation detail. If you decide > later that, for whatever reason, you want to change the implementation to a > defined method, this example will still pass - or fail if you do the wrong > thing. That''s the whole point for executable examples. They encourage you to > write the code you need and only the code you need, and then later they let > you know whether changes you make to implementation preserve the behaviour > that you are expecting. > > That all make sense?Ok, that made a lot of sense, and for my particular case seems to be the sensible approach. But where do you draw the line? Take the ActiveRecord example. By the same logic you could argue that whatever code you have that uses ActiveRecord should be spec''ed according to its (your code''s) expected behavior, regardless of it using ActiveRecord or not under the hood. But then couldn''t you end up describing a lot of ActiveRecord''s behavior along the way, which would be kinda wasteful, since ActiveRecord is itself pretty well-tested already?> > Tchau, > David > > ps - eu acho que voc? ? brasileiro ou portugu?s por causa do seu nome - n?? > > >> But I guess I got a bit carried away, as in that declaration there is >> stuff besides the declaration itself, namely, the bit specifying the >> order. So it would be better to test for that, rather than just >> testing if it was declared or not. >> >> Thanks a lot for your help :) >> >> >>> >>> Pat >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rspec-users mailing list >>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org >>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Helder Ribeiro >> >> ProFUSION >> Embedded Systems >> http://profusion.mobi >> >> "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were >> standing on my shoulders" -- Jeff Goll >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >-- Helder Ribeiro ProFUSION Embedded Systems http://profusion.mobi "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders" -- Jeff Goll