rspec users - Jan 2009 - Strange message expectation behaviour with Time.now in a find condition

Even if this is a bug, it''s a pretty obscure one.  It was frustrating
the hell out of me until I found a workaround, so I thought I''d just
post the details:

Given a find like this:

def self.find_old
  User.all(:conditions => [''updated_at <= ?'',Time.now -
1.day)
  ...

Trying to set a message expectation will always fail:

it "should find users" do
  User.should_receive(:all).with({:conditions => [''updated_at
<= ?'',Time.now - 1.day]})
  User.find_old
  ...

with the error:
  Mock ''Class'' expected :all with
({:conditions=>["updated_at <= ?",
Wed Jan 28 17:59:02 +0000 2009]}) but received it with ({:conditions=>
["updated_at <= ?", Wed Jan 28 17:59:02 +0000 2009]})

Expected and received here are identical.

The only workaround I''ve found (the example here is simplified, but
the datetime in the model where I discovered the bug is critical and
so needs to be spec''d) is to wrap the Time call and the expectation in
another format:

User.all(:conditions => [''updated_at <= ?'',(Time.now -
1.day).xmlschema])

and

it "should find users" do
  User.should_receive(:all).with({:conditions => [''updated_at <=
?'',
(Time.now - 1.day).xmlschema]})

I''m on rspec 1.1.12 on rails 2.1.0 and I''m guessing the + in
the
formatted datetime is playing hell with a regexp somewhere.
Unfortunately, I don''t have time to dig in to it myself right now.

I was seeing the same behaviour when I tried hash_including
(:conditions => [''updated_at <= ?'',Time.now - 1.day]) as
part of the
expectation.

Thanks,
Todd

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:08 PM, tatyree <todd at snappl.co.uk> wrote:
> Even if this is a bug, it''s a pretty obscure one.  It was
frustrating
> the hell out of me until I found a workaround, so I thought I''d
just
> post the details:
>
> Given a find like this:
>
> def self.find_old
>  User.all(:conditions => [''updated_at <=
?'',Time.now - 1.day)
>  ...
>
> Trying to set a message expectation will always fail:
>
> it "should find users" do
>  User.should_receive(:all).with({:conditions => [''updated_at
> <= ?'',Time.now - 1.day]})
>  User.find_old
>  ...
>
> with the error:
>  Mock ''Class'' expected :all with
({:conditions=>["updated_at <= ?",
> Wed Jan 28 17:59:02 +0000 2009]}) but received it with ({:conditions=>
> ["updated_at <= ?", Wed Jan 28 17:59:02 +0000 2009]})
>
> Expected and received here are identical.
>
> The only workaround I''ve found (the example here is simplified,
but
> the datetime in the model where I discovered the bug is critical and
> so needs to be spec''d) is to wrap the Time call and the
expectation in
> another format:
>
> User.all(:conditions => [''updated_at <=
?'',(Time.now -
> 1.day).xmlschema])
>
> and
>
> it "should find users" do
>  User.should_receive(:all).with({:conditions => [''updated_at
<= ?'',
> (Time.now - 1.day).xmlschema]})
>
> I''m on rspec 1.1.12 on rails 2.1.0 and I''m guessing the +
in the
> formatted datetime is playing hell with a regexp somewhere.
> Unfortunately, I don''t have time to dig in to it myself right now.
>
> I was seeing the same behaviour when I tried hash_including
> (:conditions => [''updated_at <= ?'',Time.now -
1.day]) as part of the
> expectation.

The problem is a display problem - the Time objects are actually different
by some milliseconds, but you don''t see that in the feedback.

Try this:

now = Time.now
Time.stub!(:now).and_return(now)

Then both calls will return the same object.

>
>
> Thanks,
> Todd
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090129/df78059e/attachment.html>

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:08 PM, tatyree <todd at snappl.co.uk>
wrote:
> Even if this is a bug, it''s a pretty obscure one.  It was
frustrating
> the hell out of me until I found a workaround, so I thought I''d
just
> post the details:
>
> Given a find like this:
>
> def self.find_old
>  User.all(:conditions => [''updated_at <=
?'',Time.now - 1.day)
>  ...
>
> Trying to set a message expectation will always fail:
>
> it "should find users" do
>  User.should_receive(:all).with({:conditions => [''updated_at
> <= ?'',Time.now - 1.day]})
>  User.find_old
>  ...
>
> with the error:
>  Mock ''Class'' expected :all with
({:conditions=>["updated_at <= ?",
> Wed Jan 28 17:59:02 +0000 2009]}) but received it with ({:conditions=>
> ["updated_at <= ?", Wed Jan 28 17:59:02 +0000 2009]})
>
> Expected and received here are identical.
>
No they are not. They are milliseconds apart.

You should *always* stub Time.now in tests.

Aslak
> The only workaround I''ve found (the example here is simplified,
but
> the datetime in the model where I discovered the bug is critical and
> so needs to be spec''d) is to wrap the Time call and the
expectation in
> another format:
>
> User.all(:conditions => [''updated_at <=
?'',(Time.now -
> 1.day).xmlschema])
>
> and
>
> it "should find users" do
>  User.should_receive(:all).with({:conditions => [''updated_at
<= ?'',
> (Time.now - 1.day).xmlschema]})
>
> I''m on rspec 1.1.12 on rails 2.1.0 and I''m guessing the +
in the
> formatted datetime is playing hell with a regexp somewhere.
> Unfortunately, I don''t have time to dig in to it myself right now.
>
> I was seeing the same behaviour when I tried hash_including
> (:conditions => [''updated_at <= ?'',Time.now -
1.day]) as part of the
> expectation.
>
> Thanks,
> Todd
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>


-- 
Aslak (::)

On 29/01/2009, at 1:41 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:08 PM, tatyree <todd at snappl.co.uk>
wrote:
> Even if this is a bug, it''s a pretty obscure one.  It was
frustrating
> the hell out of me until I found a workaround, so I thought I''d
just
> post the details:
>
> Given a find like this:
>
> def self.find_old
>  User.all(:conditions => [''updated_at <=
?'',Time.now - 1.day)
>  ...
>
> Trying to set a message expectation will always fail:
>
> it "should find users" do
>  User.should_receive(:all).with({:conditions => [''updated_at
> <= ?'',Time.now - 1.day]})
>  User.find_old
>  ...
>
> with the error:
>  Mock ''Class'' expected :all with
({:conditions=>["updated_at <= ?",
> Wed Jan 28 17:59:02 +0000 2009]}) but received it with ({:conditions=>
> ["updated_at <= ?", Wed Jan 28 17:59:02 +0000 2009]})
>
> Expected and received here are identical.
>
> The only workaround I''ve found (the example here is simplified,
but
> the datetime in the model where I discovered the bug is critical and
> so needs to be spec''d) is to wrap the Time call and the
expectation in
> another format:
>
> User.all(:conditions => [''updated_at <=
?'',(Time.now -
> 1.day).xmlschema])
>
> and
>
> it "should find users" do
>  User.should_receive(:all).with({:conditions => [''updated_at
<= ?'',
> (Time.now - 1.day).xmlschema]})
>
> I''m on rspec 1.1.12 on rails 2.1.0 and I''m guessing the +
in the
> formatted datetime is playing hell with a regexp somewhere.
> Unfortunately, I don''t have time to dig in to it myself right now.
>
> I was seeing the same behaviour when I tried hash_including
> (:conditions => [''updated_at <= ?'',Time.now -
1.day]) as part of the
> expectation.
>
> The problem is a display problem - the Time objects are actually  
> different by some milliseconds, but you don''t see that in the  
> feedback.
>
> Try this:
>
> now = Time.now
> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(now)
>
> Then both calls will return the same object.
You''re too fast, David and Aslak!  =P

Todd, I fell prey to the same problem a few months ago. As David and  
Aslak suggested, just stub out Time#now . Eg:

it ''should do something'' do
   now = Time.now
   Time.stub!(:now).and_return now
   User.should_receive(:all).with(:conditions => [''updated_at <=
?'',
now - 1.day])
   User.all(:conditions => [''updated_at <= ?'', Time.now
- 1.day])
end

Cheers,
Nick

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:41 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at
gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:08 PM, tatyree <todd at snappl.co.uk>
wrote:
>>
>> Even if this is a bug, it''s a pretty obscure one.  It was
frustrating
>> the hell out of me until I found a workaround, so I thought
I''d just
>> post the details:
>>
>> Given a find like this:
>>
>> def self.find_old
>>  User.all(:conditions => [''updated_at <=
?'',Time.now - 1.day)
>>  ...
>>
>> Trying to set a message expectation will always fail:
>>
>> it "should find users" do
>>  User.should_receive(:all).with({:conditions =>
[''updated_at
>> <= ?'',Time.now - 1.day]})
>>  User.find_old
>>  ...
>>
>> with the error:
>>  Mock ''Class'' expected :all with
({:conditions=>["updated_at <= ?",
>> Wed Jan 28 17:59:02 +0000 2009]}) but received it with
({:conditions=>
>> ["updated_at <= ?", Wed Jan 28 17:59:02 +0000 2009]})
>>
>> Expected and received here are identical.
>>
>> The only workaround I''ve found (the example here is
simplified, but
>> the datetime in the model where I discovered the bug is critical and
>> so needs to be spec''d) is to wrap the Time call and the
expectation in
>> another format:
>>
>> User.all(:conditions => [''updated_at <=
?'',(Time.now -
>> 1.day).xmlschema])
>>
>> and
>>
>> it "should find users" do
>>  User.should_receive(:all).with({:conditions =>
[''updated_at <= ?'',
>> (Time.now - 1.day).xmlschema]})
>>
>> I''m on rspec 1.1.12 on rails 2.1.0 and I''m guessing
the + in the
>> formatted datetime is playing hell with a regexp somewhere.
>> Unfortunately, I don''t have time to dig in to it myself right
now.
>>
>> I was seeing the same behaviour when I tried hash_including
>> (:conditions => [''updated_at <= ?'',Time.now -
1.day]) as part of the
>> expectation.
>
> The problem is a display problem - the Time objects are actually different
> by some milliseconds, but you don''t see that in the feedback.
> Try this:
> now = Time.now
> Time.stub!(:now).and_return(now)
> Then both calls will return the same object.
What David, Aslak & Nick said.

btw...

~:$ irb
>> Time.now == Time.now
=> false

Pat

Thanks for that everyone! Henceforth I shall always endeavour to stop
the flow of time in all of my specs!

Avdi Grimm wrote a blog post about why he doesn''t stub Time.now and
instead
always injects a clock into his objects. I disagreed, but I can''t seem
to
find the article now.

///ark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20090130/84ac63e3/attachment.html>

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Mark Wilden <mark at mwilden.com>
wrote:
> Avdi Grimm wrote a blog post about why he doesn''t stub Time.now
and instead
> always injects a clock into his objects. I disagreed, but I can''t
seem to
> find the article now.
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/297660
>
> ///ark
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:38 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at
gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Mark Wilden <mark at mwilden.com>
wrote:
> > Avdi Grimm wrote a blog post about why he doesn''t stub
Time.now and
> instead
> > always injects a clock into his objects. I disagreed, but I
can''t seem to
> > find the article now.
>
> http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/297660
>
Yeah, I saw that, but he laid out his case in greater depth in a blog post
(i know because I posted a comment disagreeing with it!).

The interesting thing is that Avdi says that stubbing Time.now has broken
some of his tests in the past because of other code (like RSpec) that calls
it. I can''t say I''ve ever run into that myself, but it bears
keeping in
mind.

///ark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20090130/a6c854ae/attachment.html>

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Mark Wilden <mark at mwilden.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:38 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Mark Wilden <mark at
mwilden.com> wrote:
>> > Avdi Grimm wrote a blog post about why he doesn''t stub
Time.now and
>> > instead
>> > always injects a clock into his objects. I disagreed, but I
can''t seem
>> > to
>> > find the article now.
>>
>> http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/297660
>
> Yeah, I saw that, but he laid out his case in greater depth in a blog post
> (i know because I posted a comment disagreeing with it!).
>
> The interesting thing is that Avdi says that stubbing Time.now has broken
> some of his tests in the past because of other code (like RSpec) that calls
> it. I can''t say I''ve ever run into that myself, but it
bears keeping in
> mind.
I think that using a custom Clock class can be very useful.  However,
it can cause confusion in Rails apps, because AR uses Time.now for
created_at and updated_at.  You''d have to keep specific track of when
you meant to use Clock and when you wanted to control Time, and to me
it''s just not worth it.

Pat