rspec users - May 2009 - [RSpec] implicit receiver for should problem when helper predicate methods are in use

I just upgraded RSpec and noticed that some of my specs started to
fail and it is caused by the 1.1.2 update where implicit receiver for
should is introduced.

Here is one sample example group, which works with older versions
naturally.

describe "example group" do
	it "example" do
         should be_ok
       end

	def ok?
	  true
	end
end

And gets NoMethodError of course. I tried different things to set as
subject, but was unlucky. For example, subject {self} caused
SystemStackError although I hoped that this does the trick, since self
has method ok? as expected.

I also noticed that there is accessor for subject, so I tried
something like this instead of def ok?:

def subject.ok?
   true
end

Why doesn''t it work? It works when doing like this:
s = "str"
def s.ok?; true; end
s.ok? # true

I found only one way to fix them like this:
class String
    def ok?
	true
    end
end

Of course I''m not happy with that solution :)

What are my options to fix these specs? It seems to me that most
logical functionality to this problem would be to make the subject
{self} line to work as expected.

Jarmo

I just upgraded RSpec and noticed that some of my specs started to fail and
it is caused by the 1.1.2 update where implicit receiver for should is
introduced.

Here is one sample example group, which works with older versions naturally.

describe "example group" do
	it "example" do
         should be_ok
       end
	
	def ok?
	  true
	end
end

And gets NoMethodError of course. I tried different things to set as
subject, but was unlucky. For example, subject {self} caused
SystemStackError although I hoped that this does the trick, since self has
method ok? as expected.

I also noticed that there is accessor for subject, so I tried something like
this instead of def ok?:

def subject.ok?
   true
end

Why doesn''t it work? It works when doing like this:
s = "str"
def s.ok?; true; end
s.ok? # true

I found only one way to fix them like this:
class String
    def ok?
	true
    end
end

Of course I''m not happy with that solution :)

What are my options to fix these specs? It seems to me that most logical
functionality to this problem would be to make the subject {self} line to
work as expected.

Jarmo
-- 
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-RSpec--implicit-receiver-for-should-problem-when-helper-predicate-methods-are-in-use-tp23432383p23432383.html
Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Okay, I fiddled around a little and made this solution:
module Spec
  module Example
    module Subject
      module ExampleMethods

        def should(matcher=nil)
          if matcher
            self == subject ?
Spec::Expectations::PositiveExpectationHandler.handle_matcher(self,
matcher) : subject.should(matcher)
          else
            self == subject ?
Spec::Expectations::PositiveExpectationHandler.handle_matcher(self) :
subject.should
          end
        end

        def should_not(matcher=nil)
          if matcher
            self == subject ?
Spec::Expectations::NegativeExpectationHandler.handle_matcher(self,
matcher) : subject.should_not(matcher)
          else
            self == subject ?
Spec::Expectations::NegativeExpectationHandler.handle_matcher(self) :
subject.should_not
          end
        end
      end
    end
  end
end

In short, if subject is set as self then I''m calling Kernel::should
method''s body directly. I don''t know if there''s any
side effects that
I''m omitting block parameter (although original should and should_not
also doesn''t send any blocks).

Any problems that might arise with this patch?

Also, if my original example wasn''t real life example enough, then I
will give another one:
require ''watir''

describe "Google" do
   subject {self}

   before :all do
     @b = Watir::Browser.new
     @b.goto "http://www.google.com"
  end

  it "has google written on page" do
    should have_text("Google")
  end

  def has_text? text
    @b.text.include?(text)
  end

end

PS! I changed my poster nick, but I''m still the same "juuser"
who made
original thread.

Regards,
Jarmo

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:14 AM, juuuser <jarmo.p at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I just upgraded RSpec and noticed that some of my specs started to fail and
> it is caused by the 1.1.2 update where implicit receiver for should is
> introduced.
>
> Here is one sample example group, which works with older versions
naturally.
>
> describe "example group" do
> ? ? ? ?it "example" do
> ? ? ? ? should be_ok
> ? ? ? end
>
> ? ? ? ?def ok?
> ? ? ? ? ?true
> ? ? ? ?end
> end
>
> And gets NoMethodError of course. I tried different things to set as
> subject, but was unlucky. For example, subject {self} caused
> SystemStackError although I hoped that this does the trick, since self has
> method ok? as expected.
>
> I also noticed that there is accessor for subject, so I tried something
like
> this instead of def ok?:
>
> def subject.ok?
> ? true
> end
>
> Why doesn''t it work? It works when doing like this:
> s = "str"
> def s.ok?; true; end
> s.ok? # true
>
> I found only one way to fix them like this:
> class String
> ? ?def ok?
> ? ? ? ?true
> ? ?end
> end
>
> Of course I''m not happy with that solution :)
>
> What are my options to fix these specs? It seems to me that most logical
> functionality to this problem would be to make the subject {self} line to
> work as expected.
I don''t understand why you want these to pass in the first place. Can
you give an example of where the receiver should be the example
itself?
>
> Jarmo
> --
> View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-RSpec--implicit-receiver-for-should-problem-when-helper-predicate-methods-are-in-use-tp23432383p23432383.html
> Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Jarmo Pertman <Jarmo.P at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Okay, I fiddled around a little and made this solution:
> module Spec
> ?module Example
> ? ?module Subject
> ? ? ?module ExampleMethods
>
> ? ? ? ?def should(matcher=nil)
> ? ? ? ? ?if matcher
> ? ? ? ? ? ?self == subject ?
> Spec::Expectations::PositiveExpectationHandler.handle_matcher(self,
> matcher) : subject.should(matcher)
> ? ? ? ? ?else
> ? ? ? ? ? ?self == subject ?
> Spec::Expectations::PositiveExpectationHandler.handle_matcher(self) :
> subject.should
> ? ? ? ? ?end
> ? ? ? ?end
>
> ? ? ? ?def should_not(matcher=nil)
> ? ? ? ? ?if matcher
> ? ? ? ? ? ?self == subject ?
> Spec::Expectations::NegativeExpectationHandler.handle_matcher(self,
> matcher) : subject.should_not(matcher)
> ? ? ? ? ?else
> ? ? ? ? ? ?self == subject ?
> Spec::Expectations::NegativeExpectationHandler.handle_matcher(self) :
> subject.should_not
> ? ? ? ? ?end
> ? ? ? ?end
> ? ? ?end
> ? ?end
> ?end
> end
>
> In short, if subject is set as self then I''m calling
Kernel::should
> method''s body directly. I don''t know if there''s
any side effects that
> I''m omitting block parameter (although original should and
should_not
> also doesn''t send any blocks).
>
> Any problems that might arise with this patch?
The first problem is the dependency on subject, which is a construct
from rspec''s example groups. This would make rspec''s matchers
unusable
outside rspec.

I''m also not clear on what your goal is, per my earlier response.
Please help me understand.
>
> Also, if my original example wasn''t real life example enough, then
I
> will give another one:
> require ''watir''
>
> describe "Google" do
> ? subject {self}
>
> ? before :all do
> ? ? @b = Watir::Browser.new
> ? ? @b.goto "http://www.google.com"
> ?end
>
> ?it "has google written on page" do
> ? ?should have_text("Google")
> ?end
>
> ?def has_text? text
> ? ?@b.text.include?(text)
> ?end
>
> end
>
> PS! I changed my poster nick, but I''m still the same
"juuser" who made
> original thread.
>
> Regards,
> Jarmo
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

I think that I don''t understand what you mean by that exactly. I mean,
I patched the should and should_not methods in moule
Subject::ExampleMethods themselves, which means that this changes only
behaviour of subject itself e.g. it is already part of RSpec and don''t
see how it would break matchers outside of RSpec. Please correct me if
i''m wrong.

Anyway, wasn''t that Watir example good enough? I think that
You''re
right when You think that this thing should not be needed when testing
Ruby code with RSpec, but as soon as I start using Watir or some
similar tool, then I need to write bunch of helper methods to make my
specs less verbose. Let me try to make it more clear.

module WatirHelperMethods
    def has_text? text
      text.is_a?(Regexp) ? $browser.text =~ text :
$browser.text.include?(text)
    end

    def login user_id
      # do something so user would be logged in
    end

    def logged_in? user_id
      # return true if user is logged in
    end

    def start_browser_on_url url
      $browser = Browser.new
      $browser.goto url
    end
end

describe "my test" do
    include WatirHelperMethods

    before :all do
      start_browser_on_url "http://url"
    end

    it "should log user into application" do
      login "testuser"
      should be_logged_in
      should have_text("Welcome testuser")
   end

   after :all do
     $browser.close
   end
end

Something like this. Do You see where I''m going? Or am I doing
something what I ain''t suppose to do ever? Should I just make
WatirHelperMethods as a class instead of module so it would work like
this: helper = HelperClass.new($browser); helper.login "testuser"...?
Doesn''t remove much of a verboseness also.

I have also another question: why the should and should_not methods in
Spec::Example::Subject::ExampleMethods have this if statement anyway?
I mean, the matcher argument has it''s default value as nil and it is
also as nil on Kernel#should(_not) method so this if doesn''t make
sense to me. Can''t it just be written as subject.should(matcher)? Or
is it just some code block which is written like that because of some
3rd party tools?

Jarmo
>
> The first problem is the dependency on subject, which is a construct
> from rspec''s example groups. This would make rspec''s
matchers unusable
> outside rspec.
>
> I''m also not clear on what your goal is, per my earlier response.
> Please help me understand.

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Jarmo Pertman <Jarmo.P at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I think that I don''t understand what you mean by that exactly. I
mean,
> I patched the should and should_not methods in moule
> Subject::ExampleMethods themselves, which means that this changes only
> behaviour of subject itself e.g. it is already part of RSpec and
don''t
> see how it would break matchers outside of RSpec. Please correct me if
> i''m wrong.
You''re correct. I misunderstood.
> Anyway, wasn''t that Watir example good enough? I think that
You''re
> right when You think that this thing should not be needed when testing
> Ruby code with RSpec, but as soon as I start using Watir or some
> similar tool, then I need to write bunch of helper methods to make my
> specs less verbose. Let me try to make it more clear.
>
> module WatirHelperMethods
> ? ?def has_text? text
> ? ? ?text.is_a?(Regexp) ? $browser.text =~ text :
> $browser.text.include?(text)
> ? ?end
>
> ? ?def login user_id
> ? ? ?# do something so user would be logged in
> ? ?end
>
> ? ?def logged_in? user_id
> ? ? ?# return true if user is logged in
> ? ?end
>
> ? ?def start_browser_on_url url
> ? ? ?$browser = Browser.new
> ? ? ?$browser.goto url
> ? ?end
> end
>
> describe "my test" do
> ? ?include WatirHelperMethods
>
> ? ?before :all do
> ? ? ?start_browser_on_url "http://url"
> ? ?end
>
> ? ?it "should log user into application" do
> ? ? ?login "testuser"
> ? ? ?should be_logged_in
> ? ? ?should have_text("Welcome testuser")
> ? end
>
> ? after :all do
> ? ? $browser.close
> ? end
> end
>
> Something like this. Do You see where I''m going? Or am I doing
> something what I ain''t suppose to do ever? Should I just make
> WatirHelperMethods as a class instead of module so it would work like
> this: helper = HelperClass.new($browser); helper.login
"testuser"...?
> Doesn''t remove much of a verboseness also.
This is pretty helpful, thanks for a more thorough explanation. I did
add your patch locally, however, and it doesn''t seem to solve the
problem (I still get undefined method `ok?'' when I run the example in
your 2nd post).

I need to think about this some more before I agree to go in this
direction, as I want to make sure there are no negative impacts that
I''m not thinking of right now. That said, I''d need a patch w/
specs
that fail without this change and pass with this change. Please file a
ticket at http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com w/ a patch.

Cheers,
David
> I have also another question: why the should and should_not methods in
> Spec::Example::Subject::ExampleMethods have this if statement anyway?
> I mean, the matcher argument has it''s default value as nil and it
is
> also as nil on Kernel#should(_not) method so this if doesn''t make
> sense to me. Can''t it just be written as subject.should(matcher)?
Or
> is it just some code block which is written like that because of some
> 3rd party tools?
Good point - thanks! :
http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/commit/b061f9f40dc8a29d34ddb3e74427b244bbcf0aa8


>
> Jarmo
>
>>
>> The first problem is the dependency on subject, which is a construct
>> from rspec''s example groups. This would make rspec''s
matchers unusable
>> outside rspec.
>>
>> I''m also not clear on what your goal is, per my earlier
response.
>> Please help me understand.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On May 8, 10:50?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com>
wrote:
> This is pretty helpful, thanks for a more thorough explanation. I did
> add your patch locally, however, and it doesn''t seem to solve the
> problem (I still get undefined method `ok?'' when I run the example
in
> your 2nd post).
Sorry. It didn''t work because I didn''t have subject {self}
there.

>
> I need to think about this some more before I agree to go in this
> direction, as I want to make sure there are no negative impacts that
> I''m not thinking of right now. That said, I''d need a
patch w/ specs
> that fail without this change and pass with this change. Please file a
> ticket athttp://rspec.lighthouseapp.comw/ a patch.
Ok, will do that later.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> > I have also another question: why the should and should_not methods in
> > Spec::Example::Subject::ExampleMethods have this if statement anyway?
> > I mean, the matcher argument has it''s default value as nil
and it is
> > also as nil on Kernel#should(_not) method so this if doesn''t
make
> > sense to me. Can''t it just be written as
subject.should(matcher)? Or
> > is it just some code block which is written like that because of some
> > 3rd party tools?
>
> Good point - thanks!
:http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/commit/b061f9f40dc8a29d34ddb3e7442...
:)

Cheers,
Jarmo

Added patch and specs to
https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645-rspec/tickets/816-possibility-to-use-self-as-a-subject-for-explicit-receiver

Jarmo

Thanks for adding this change into repo!
I''m quite surprised that anyone else haven''t stumbled upon
this
problem yet. I guess it''s because most of spec''ing is done for
Ruby
projects, so this functionality is not needed.

I have been thinking a little more about this topic and asked myself:
why not make it backwards compatible without explicitly stating
subject as ''self''? If not making it backwards compatible then
all my
current specs which use Watir would have to be changed by adding
"subject {self}" to them.

Why just not use ExampleGroup as a receiver for #should when string is
used in ExampleGroup description? I cannot see any negative impacts on
that change and rake specs are also passing. Any ideas where this
might fail? There probably aren''t any specs where description is
written as a string and then you want to invoke matchers against that
string... Doesn''t seem logical to me.

So, I''ve changed locally should method in
Spec::Example::Subject::ExampleMethods from:

        def should(matcher=nil)
          self == subject ? self.__should_for_example_group__
(matcher) : subject.should(matcher)
        end

to:
        def should(matcher=nil)
          if self == subject || (subject.is_a?(String) && subject
=instance_eval(&self.class.subject))
            self.__should_for_example_group__(matcher)
          else
            subject.should(matcher)
          end
        end

I''ve added that "&& subject ==
instance_eval(&self.class.subject)"
part as an extra precaution, but i don''t have any ideas, why
it''s
needed anyway, because I cannot think of any cases where string is
used as a subject... or maybe there are some libraries, which monkey-
patch String and want to call #should implicitly?! :)

in short, at the moment this seems to work also (rake specs are
passing again):
        def should(matcher=nil)
          if self == subject || subject.is_a?(String)
            self.__should_for_example_group__(matcher)
          else
            subject.should(matcher)
          end
        end

If you think that this functionality might be reasonable for wider use
(some other Watir or similar library users for example), then I can
provide a patch with specs.

Regards,
Jarmo

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Jarmo Pertman <Jarmo.P at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thanks for adding this change into repo!
> I''m quite surprised that anyone else haven''t stumbled
upon this
> problem yet. I guess it''s because most of spec''ing is
done for Ruby
> projects, so this functionality is not needed.
>
> I have been thinking a little more about this topic and asked myself:
> why not make it backwards compatible without explicitly stating
> subject as ''self''? If not making it backwards compatible
then all my
> current specs which use Watir would have to be changed by adding
> "subject {self}" to them.
>
> Why just not use ExampleGroup as a receiver for #should when string is
> used in ExampleGroup description? I cannot see any negative impacts on
> that change and rake specs are also passing. Any ideas where this
> might fail? There probably aren''t any specs where description is
> written as a string and then you want to invoke matchers against that
> string... Doesn''t seem logical to me.
>
> So, I''ve changed locally should method in
> Spec::Example::Subject::ExampleMethods from:
>
> ? ? ? ?def should(matcher=nil)
> ? ? ? ? ?self == subject ? self.__should_for_example_group__
> (matcher) : subject.should(matcher)
> ? ? ? ?end
>
> to:
> ? ? ? ?def should(matcher=nil)
> ? ? ? ? ?if self == subject || (subject.is_a?(String) && subject
=> instance_eval(&self.class.subject))
> ? ? ? ? ? ?self.__should_for_example_group__(matcher)
> ? ? ? ? ?else
> ? ? ? ? ? ?subject.should(matcher)
> ? ? ? ? ?end
> ? ? ? ?end
>
> I''ve added that "&& subject ==
instance_eval(&self.class.subject)"
> part as an extra precaution, but i don''t have any ideas, why
it''s
> needed anyway, because I cannot think of any cases where string is
> used as a subject... or maybe there are some libraries, which monkey-
> patch String and want to call #should implicitly?! :)
>
> in short, at the moment this seems to work also (rake specs are
> passing again):
> ? ? ? ?def should(matcher=nil)
> ? ? ? ? ?if self == subject || subject.is_a?(String)
> ? ? ? ? ? ?self.__should_for_example_group__(matcher)
> ? ? ? ? ?else
> ? ? ? ? ? ?subject.should(matcher)
> ? ? ? ? ?end
> ? ? ? ?end
>
> If you think that this functionality might be reasonable for wider use
> (some other Watir or similar library users for example), then I can
> provide a patch with specs.
I don''t want to promote using self as subject. I think being able to
do so explicitly, as we can now with your previous patch, is perfectly
reasonable. But doing so is a bit of a trick in my view, and runs
counter to the overall intent of the structure of examples of
behaviour of an object or sub-system. "should" is about that object or
sub-system, not self.

If your whole suite is using this, you can localize the "subject
{self}" call, however, in spec_helper, like this:

class Spec::ExampleGroup
  subject {self}
end

HTH,
David

> Regards,
> Jarmo

On May 12, 6:21?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I don''t want to promote using self as subject. I think being able
to
> do so explicitly, as we can now with your previous patch, is perfectly
> reasonable. But doing so is a bit of a trick in my view, and runs
> counter to the overall intent of the structure of examples of
> behaviour of an object or sub-system. "should" is about that
object or
> sub-system, not self.
I''m also thinking that maybe I''m doing something wrong when
using this
approach, but cannot think of any better way. Do you have any
suggestions how to get rid of using self as a subject in my context?
Maybe i''m not aware of some best practices when it comes to using
helper methods. Should I monkey-patch Watir (or some other library) to
add methods to it like has_text? and so on in which case subject would
be $browser (which is actually correct)?

>
> If your whole suite is using this, you can localize the "subject
> {self}" call, however, in spec_helper, like this:
>
> class Spec::ExampleGroup
> ? subject {self}
> end
Thank you for this great tip! I think that this solution will satisfy
me.

>
> HTH,
> David
Jarmo

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Jarmo Pertman <Jarmo.P at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On May 12, 6:21?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don''t want to promote using self as subject. I think being
able to
>> do so explicitly, as we can now with your previous patch, is perfectly
>> reasonable. But doing so is a bit of a trick in my view, and runs
>> counter to the overall intent of the structure of examples of
>> behaviour of an object or sub-system. "should" is about that
object or
>> sub-system, not self.
> I''m also thinking that maybe I''m doing something wrong
when using this
> approach, but cannot think of any better way. Do you have any
> suggestions how to get rid of using self as a subject in my context?
> Maybe i''m not aware of some best practices when it comes to using
> helper methods. Should I monkey-patch Watir (or some other library) to
> add methods to it like has_text? and so on in which case subject would
> be $browser (which is actually correct)?
I actually think that what you''re doing is perfectly fine. Just not
the common case. That''s why I think it''s OK to support
explicitly
assigning self as subject, but not making that a default behaviour.

If it were me, and it''s *not*, but if it were, I''d wrap those
helpers
in an object and make explicit calls.
>> If your whole suite is using this, you can localize the "subject
>> {self}" call, however, in spec_helper, like this:
>>
>> class Spec::ExampleGroup
>> ? subject {self}
>> end
> Thank you for this great tip! I think that this solution will satisfy
> me.
>
>
>>
>> HTH,
>> David
>
> Jarmo
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Jarmo Pertman <Jarmo.P at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On May 12, 6:21?am, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don''t want to promote using self as subject. I think being
able to
>> do so explicitly, as we can now with your previous patch, is perfectly
>> reasonable. But doing so is a bit of a trick in my view, and runs
>> counter to the overall intent of the structure of examples of
>> behaviour of an object or sub-system. "should" is about that
object or
>> sub-system, not self.
> I''m also thinking that maybe I''m doing something wrong
when using this
> approach, but cannot think of any better way. Do you have any
> suggestions how to get rid of using self as a subject in my context?
> Maybe i''m not aware of some best practices when it comes to using
> helper methods. Should I monkey-patch Watir (or some other library) to
> add methods to it like has_text? and so on in which case subject would
> be $browser (which is actually correct)?
>
>
>>
>> If your whole suite is using this, you can localize the "subject
>> {self}" call, however, in spec_helper, like this:
>>
>> class Spec::ExampleGroup
>> ? subject {self}
>> end
> Thank you for this great tip! I think that this solution will satisfy
> me.
Great!

Cheers,
David
>
>
>>
>> HTH,
>> David
>
> Jarmo
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On May 13, 7:08?pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I actually think that what you''re doing is perfectly fine. Just
not
> the common case. That''s why I think it''s OK to support
explicitly
> assigning self as subject, but not making that a default behaviour.
>
> If it were me, and it''s *not*, but if it were, I''d wrap
those helpers
> in an object and make explicit calls.
you mean something like this?

class PageHelper
  def has_text?
   # blah
  end
end

describe "cool page" do
   subject {PageHelper.new}

   before :all do
      PageHelper.new
   end

   it "has something" do
     should have_text("blah")
   end

end

Doesn''t seem too bad. I will give it a thought!

Jarmo