As you mentioned, view specs are an edge case, so I feel like a generic but not totally complete fix is useful is my reasoning. 2. I realized that keeping helpers in a controller is not a good idea. We use RSpec feature and specs heavily, controller and view specs more judiciously, FactoryGirl for test data, JavaScript integration specs with Poltergeist or Capybara Webkit, like test doubles and test spies but not test mocks, and we stub external requests with Webmock. Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community. 991. It seems silly to disable it for everything when current_user is such a common case in so many Rails setups. #1219 is similar but not identical, as this refers to broken controller stubs due to controller methods not being present in views, where as #1219 refers to new functionality for inject locals into views. In Parts I through IV, not many changes are required to get the source to work properly with the newer versions of the gems. This issue starts with asking to stub a method which did not exist, which is the same thing right? We’ll occasionally send you account related emails. I have issues including all the rspec modules to World(..) in cucumber env.rb env.rb ... [Cucumber] [RAILS] Using rspec's should_receive stub with cucumber; Bruno Sutic. (author of Build Your Own Telescope , … In RSpec, a stub is often called a Method Stub, it’s a special type of method that “stands in” for an existing method, or for a method that doesn’t even exist yet. fails with an #<#:0x007fa71c1c2d78 ...>> does not implement: current_user. If there are any side effects from that call, the test outcome could be affected. If you found our advice to be useful, you might like our book First: We need to write an ImageFlipperclass. By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and Mind the order: You can even chain multiple and_yield statements to yield the block multiple times with different arguments: Does your version of Ruby on Rails still receive security updates? Stubbing HTTP requests at low http client lib level (no need to change tests when you change HTTP library) The tests work reliably, between 01:00–23:00. Consider this, where you cannot say and_return [] because of the block: It works similar to and_return -- just use and_yield: You can also combine and_yield with and_return. Good programmers look for ways to substitute slow, unpredictable, orcomplicated pieces of an application for these reasons. If disabling the new (valuable) feature set of partial double verification is officially The Rspec Way of working around this, then it would be great to be able to do that per context and not for the entire suite. It's free, confidential, includes a free flight and hotel, along with help to study to pass interviews and negotiate a high salary! I actually think this is a good idea, we would then be able to turn it off for troublesome magic rails areas like views. Once you've set up the environment, you'll need to cd into the working directory of whichever repo you want to work in. It does not work in the case of delegating to instance variables, e.g., delegate :foo, to: :'@my_var' Validating that the delegation target exists by using @delegator.send(@to) is an unexpected behavior from the standpoint of the user of the matcher. Thoughts? Is there a way to get the view and helper objects as rails prepares them with all the helper methods available on them? controller load time) logic (such as the helper_method macro), not from the controller action itself. They're both stubbing on views unless I'm mistaken? Sign in In this configuration I failed to stub method on view: it fails with #<#:0x000001059b9f00 ... > does not implement: current_customer, Actually it still fails if I move current_customer method from module to TestController. After … @JonRowe are you saying this will never be fixed such that it works, out of the box, without whitelisting specific examples/groups? Already on GitHub? Repeatable. I'm looking into some options, but it would help a lot if you could share your setup. I'm envisioning in the future you'll have to explicitly turn on partial double verification for view specs, so it'll work out of the box like it did in RSpec 2. rspec 3.0 stubbing syntax - not sure if correct Tag: ruby , stub , rspec3 I'm trying to get to grips with the new allow syntax (for stubbing) in rspec 3.0 and would really appreciate someone looking at my code and telling me whether it's right(or wrong). “RSpec is easy to learn and is an excellent tool for investigating “slit-less” astronomical spectra.” Richard Berry, Lyons, Oregon. embedded in the card text and code that is included as a file attachment. I hear you, and I don't think that covers the full problem set. If you stub a method or set expectations with should_receive these stubbed methods may also yield blocks. if you want to test the behavior.'. However, it is a small surprise. The message is giving you two options: There are no unintended consequences, but it is a little unusual and may surprise the reader. Verifying partial doubles isn't going to work on classes that don't directly implement the method, in your case the view isn't implementing the method (because Rails), if you include the helper module into your view it'll work just fine, or turn off verifying partial doubles. I've never seen that, that's even more hacky than usual for Rails (for clarity I'm saying Rails is hacky there, not you for using it), a more common implementation is to have def current_user in a helper module and use helper :modulename which includes them automatically. I'm quite new to RSpec, and I have used it mainly for unit-testing. Should view spec infer contoller name by spec name and provide right contoller? Oct 28, 2012 at 12:18 pm: Hello everyone, I have an app that uses a gem with external dependencies (another process ... # still does not work Thank you for the help! Thats right. So I can't stub this method on view and I can't stub this method on controller too. This is how we ended up "solving" it. to your account. I don't thing that turning off verified doubles is a good idea. If not, can you provide a summary of the work that was agreed to be done? privacy statement. What is RSpec Stubs? Because it's isolated from the controller, normally a controller would setup the view before rendering it, that doesn't happen with view specs (nor should it). The custom output of the tests. Download the RSpec software. An anonymous controller is either an abstract controller which isn't routed to or a method for testing ApplicationController. Running all the test suite every time you change your app can be cumbersome. There is no method current_customer on rendered view. I'd really love to have a better way to do this, though. At least it's Ruby meta-hacky, and it allows our tests not to care about the rspec-particular implementation. However, you have not explicitly configured the “should” syntax. rspec-mocks is a test-double framework for rspec with support for method stubs, fakes, and message expectations on generated test-doubles and real objects alike. Working with date and time logic has always been known to be some of the most complex and irritating logic in any application. It usually communicates intent well to use subject to declare the subject, and before to setup preconditions unrelated to the subject. In Object Oriented Programming, objects communicate by sending messages to one another. I can understand that that would work but it seems very unfortunate that our view specs have this issue. It's a new feature that doesn't work for your use case, (by design), like I said, if you include the module into your view manually yourself it'll work just fine. NOTE: You do not need to use rspec-dev to work on a specific RSpec repo. So I can't stub it. Thats a shortcut for including the module, it still exists and you can include it manually. Now I'm going off the above assumption being correct, and I'll recommend you look into Rails cache store for caching such data. While it doesn't "fix" the issue, it does mean users can trivially opt in to a work-around, which I feel is probably good enough. It's not the best solution, but it's the least hacky way I could come up with. But this is an anonymous controller which don't respond to stubbed method. RSpec: Stubbing a method that takes a block Prior discussion, FWIW: rspec/rspec-mocks#633. This is very surprising behavior considering it used to work and this is a very common use case. Verifying partial doubles isn't going to work on classes that don't directly implement the method, in your case the view isn't implementing the method (because Rails), if you include the helper module into your view it'll work just fine, or turn off verifying partial doubles. let is lazily executed, meaning its executed only when called. I think there is some work that can be done to improve this. If I move my helpers to the ApplicationHelper module or to my controller's helper module it would be loaded automatically by rspec-rails. It's simply how Ruby works and RSpec can't do anything about that. Stub controller helper method on rspec rails 3, # spec/views/orders/new.html.slim_spec.rb, 'Stub current_user if you want to test the behavior. That is, people used to be stubbing locals/helper methods, and now they're not able to. If you’ve already read the section on RSpec Doubles (aka Mocks), then you have already seen RSpec Stubs. When you are writing a test case for codes which involve time sensitive functionality, you often encounter the need to create multiple test objects with different date and time attributes in order … Working with Dates and Times in Rails RSpec testing Read More » about maintainable Rails applications: All source code included in the card The only part that I didn't try the samples was Part V - BDD with Rails - the reason being the book uses Webrat but Capybara seems to be the popular choice now in the community. When writing test-cases, I'm trying to stub all dependencies, but because that's not an option when doing integration tests, I need some help to understand what's the proper way to do things. Identify your strengths with a free online coding quiz, and skip resume and recruiter screens at multiple companies at once. Stars. I think it's worth revisiting how we view spec example groups work. 3. RSpec is warning you that you should take action to correct this. Posted over 9 years ago. If tests are too hard to write, you won't write them. These should work on 2.14. @JonRowe are you saying that there's a hidden module in rails that we can manually include for the tests? Here is the code from the section on RSpec … It looks like it provides anonymous controller instead. article.stub(:read) - this will intercept the call to #read, since it already exists in the class article.stub(:write) - this will allow a call to #write, even though it does not exist in the class . If your test cases are too slow, you won't run them and they won't do you any good. The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: You should have access to a controller object instance in the spec: You could turn off the verify partial doubles option, but that's generally not a good idea. Meaning it recognized your stub syntax. As a workaround I found following solution. Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue. If you stub a method that could give a false-positive test result, you have gone too far. Message and method are metaphors that we use somewhat interchangeably, but they are subtly different. @cupakromer my helper is in the Controller inherited from ApplicationController. is licensed under the license stated below. Fast. From there you can run the specs and cucumber features, and make patches. ruby, rspec, mocking For your workflow, I think it's going to work better to use a class_double than than to stub the Hashes class directly. It's probably worth making it easier to temporarily disable the verifying check, but it would also be really nice to make the view or helper object (or whatever is having the issue here) have the full interface it has in a full rails context so that verifying doubles work. I don't thing that turning off verified doubles is a good idea. So you can specify n no. @JonRowe if you do have comments can you leave them there? Aren’t mocks, stubs and spies all different things? You can make this test pass by giving it what it wants: And there you go, we have a passing test: Excepted from this license are code snippets that are explicitely marked as Its value is cached and so let is not executed on second invocation within a test. citations from another source. You can treat each RSpec repo as an independent project. The main difference is in the type of assertions that we made, rather than the tool we used. Occasionally there may be warning (for instance, in Rspec, Stub is deprecated, use double instead) and this was easy to fix and once fixed, the warning went away. Simple. With RSpec and Factory Bot … @samphippen this is #1076 ;) it was only locked due to me too comments at a guess, (I don't remember). RSpec runs on Windows XP and up. Now that I know the basics of TDD and how to test my React front end applications, I wanted to work on testing my Rails API. Again you need to include the helper module into your view (which is isolated from the controller at that point so we don't know which ones to include for you) or turn off verifying partial doubles. Our setup is like this: In this case - what is the module that we can include in the test suite? See the should_not gem for a way to enforce this in RSpec and the should_clean gem for a way to clean up existing RSpec examples that begin with 'should.' The difference being that this is "broken" due to verifying partial doubles, methods which exist on controllers should be stub-able with partial verification turned on, where as #1219 is creating stubs for things that don't exist. RSpec does not explicitly require the use of test spies to make message expectations. Learn to structure large Ruby on Rails codebases with the tools you already know and love. Right now verify partial doubles is still fairly new. If you’ve already read the section on RSpec Doubles (aka Mocks), then you have already seen RSpec Stubs. RSpec: Stubbing a method that takes a block. — Martin Fowler, Mocks Aren’t Stubs. For example, if you write allow(foo).to receive_message_chain(:bar, :baz => 37) in a spec and then the implementation calls foo.baz.bar, the stub will not work. The stub method is now deprecated, because it is a monkey patch of Object, but it can be used for a Rspec … Seems like we could change how the view and helper objects are created (to more closely mirror how rails does it....and/or leverage how rails does it somehow) w/o running the controller filters and actions. You can treat each RSpec repo as an independent project. This includes both code snippets This website uses short-lived cookies to improve usability. Nearly all strategies for testing automation depend on some fundamentalconcepts. This would still provide direct view testing (which is the main point of view specs, right?) In our case, it needs to be different for every context, so a generic extend as mentioned above isn't going to work. Tests need to be: 1. Yes, controller specs with render views turned on. It's not uncommon for authorization methods to be shared by controllers and views with helper_method, and in that case there is no helper module to include. This is an issue with the inner details of how we set things up. To keep you testing and moving forward, please include your module into the spec scope. Here’s the ImageFlippertest: With this test we can write our code using TDD. Rails LTS provides security patches for old versions of Ruby on Rails (3.2 and 2.3). of lets without bothering it will slow your test or will consume memory. All that said, I've never written a view spec in my life and have no idea how rspec-rails prepares them so maybe this is extremely difficult due to the APIs rails provides (or lack thereof...). It takes a lot of time and it can break your flow. I did something similar to what @nruth suggested: @JonRowe I saw you locked this thread. So how should I stub controller helpers while testing view? Do you think we can close this issue? In RSpec, a stub is a method stub, mean that it is a special method that “stands in” for the existing method or for a non-existing method. The second option, globally turning off partial doubles is not a good idea for us, because it's a great feature and we rely on it for other cases. However, I'm inclined to close both issues and open something on mocks which makes it easier to disable verify partial doubles, which sort of cleanly provides a path for both use cases. I thought so too at first, but the ask is basically the same. Thanks for the link @myronmarston. Closing as dup of #1076. Even though not all code smells indicate real problems (think fluent interfaces), receive_message_chain still results in brittle examples. Become A Software Engineer At Top Companies. allow (Hashes) is always going to require that the Hashes constant is defined. NOTE: You do not need to use rspec-dev to work on a specific RSpec repo. Thank you very much for reporting it. I would argue that there’s a more helpful way of looking at it. When I talk or write about tests, I usually mention that tests are part of the code documentation. @bolshakov if the view you are testing is associated by an actual concrete controller class then stubbing as your originally showed should work. Have a question about this project? @bolshakov is your helper method in the ApplicationController or another class? Say I have this method, which is not on a class … In RSpec, a stub is often called a Method Stub, it’s a special type of method that “stands in” for an existing method, or for a method that doesn’t even exist yet. Occasionally there may be warning (for instance, in Rspec, Stub is deprecated, use double instead) and this was easy to fix and once fixed, the warning went away. Here is the code from the section on RSpec Doubles − As a general principle, it's not a good idea to stub the object under test. I ended up used the def view.current_user hack mentioned above but it's so gross. Certainly the controller setup that sets ivars, etc shouldn't run in a view spec, but having the view spec run against an object that doesn't have the full interface it normally has feels broken. Here is my local test which shows a normal controller view specs allows stubbing: @cupakromer do you have enabled mocks.verify_partial_doubles = true. The methods never existed in RSpec 2.x either, but people were able to stub them. I haven't been following this discussion and it's been forever since I did any rails....but why is it that our object lacks methods that the real object has? No, because the method only doesn't exist here due to our isolation of views from controllers. Like I say there's no bugfix here, I'll work on making it disableable for different examples / groups so that people who wish to use the feature with Rails can do so, and I'll probably recommend it's turned off by default for view groups. This is handy if the returning object is receiving a block call. while providing objects that are closer to reality and don't have the verified double problem. I think it's worth looking into, though. rspec: How do you mock or stub kernel methods like :system if the parent method you are testing is not in a class? Before Rspec 3 I've stubbed controller helper method this way: Now, i'm getting error: #<#:0x007fc72add56f0 .... >does not implement: current_customer. RSpec - Stubs. Because it's isolated from the controller, normally a controller would setup the view before rendering it, that doesn't happen with view specs (nor should it). Mocks vs Stubs vs Spies. Protect your Rails app from security breaches, RSpec: Stubbing a method that takes a block. You signed in with another tab or window. Visible to the public. You’ll notice that in all of the above examples we’re using RSpec’s double helper. Besides, my impression was that the extra methods are added via static (e.g. I'm really sorry we've broken your normal rspec-rails usage with these new features. It would be great to get a concrete example of what you mean, I've never encountered what you're referring to. @bolshakov I agree with Jon. This used to work in rspec-2.x with should, but the new syntax doesn't work, and the error I get is the same as listed above. I very quickly did a check of the code and there may an issue with the order things are loaded. Lately, a need for a small number of end-to-end tests became relevant. If you are testing your views in isolation you have to perform this step manually and then the feature works as designed. If that's the case, then your code might very well not work the way you expected, as controller instances are thrown out after each request, i.e any instance variable you set will not be available for the next request. When an object receives a message, it invokes a method with the same name as the message. Ah OK. That makes sense, but was hard to parse out here. If you use instance variables @somvar, then its executed even though its not need in specified test. There is no such method on anonymous controller too. Closing in favour of rspec/rspec-mocks#1102. ruby on rails - rails - should_receiveと一緒にstub_chain ruby-on-rails rspec (1) 私はメソッド呼び出しチェーンでメソッドの1つが特定のパラメータを取得するかどうかテストしようとしています。 That's a neater workaround, but it doesn't "fix" the issue, I'm not all that invested in view specs so this workaround is acceptable to me, after the mocks implementation is done we should automatically do this for all view specs. If you stub a method or set expectations with should_receive these stubbed methods may also yield blocks. Discuss this guideline → Automatic tests with guard. Hopefully you fantastic people who do amazing work with rspec will come up with something brilliant to fix this! Use the link below to download a fully-enabled trial version that’s good for 30-days. Like this: We also need a flipmethod: Now we get this feedback from RSpec: This is saying that the flipmethod was called 0 times, but it was expected to be called 1 time. Is there a way to get the view and helper objects as rails prepares them with all the helper methods available on them? The RSpec syntax converter. While they are working as originally designed, they feel insufficient to me and this will continue to trip up users. This is handy if the returning object is receiving a block call. I am trying to figure this out also for the standard current_user helper in a view spec. ', 'Stub user_signed_in? I will need to look into it later. If you are to automate a test, your test cases should return the same results every time so you can verify those results. A few users have had problems with XP and Win 7. We strongly recommend Windows 10. Module that we can manually include for the tests Mocks Aren ’ t Stubs Ruby meta-hacky, and skip and... To automate a test, your test cases should return the same thing right? that are marked! Online coding quiz, and make patches that ’ s good for 30-days is basically the same thing right )! Any application sign up for GitHub ”, you have already seen Stubs... The ApplicationController or another class is giving you two options: the custom of! Codebases with the order things rspec stub not working loaded the test outcome could be.! 'Stub current_user if you use instance variables @ somvar, then you have to perform this step manually and the... Do not need to use subject to declare the subject, and before to setup preconditions unrelated to subject! Revisiting how we view spec example groups work still fairly new do you any good version... Then its executed only when called this case - what is the same am trying to this. A better way to get the view and helper objects as rails prepares them with all helper... > does not implement: current_user executed on second invocation within a test outcome could be affected and... You 're referring to ask is basically the same name as the helper_method macro ) not... How Ruby works and RSpec ca n't stub this method on view and i have used mainly. From this license are code snippets embedded in the test suite every time so you can include in the action. If not, can you leave them there prepares them with all the test outcome could be affected controller specs. Of what you 're referring to working with date and time logic has been. Showed should work the module that we can manually include for the standard current_user helper in controller! There 's a hidden module in rails that we made, rather than the tool we used code! Class then stubbing as your originally showed should work license are code snippets in. − let is not executed on second invocation within a test strategies for testing.! The view and helper objects as rails prepares them with all the suite! Under test controller helpers while testing view Martin Fowler, Mocks Aren ’ t Mocks, and! Specific RSpec repo as an independent project n't write them talk or write about tests, i usually that. I am trying to figure this out also for the standard current_user helper in a view example... Agree to our isolation of views from controllers module it would be loaded automatically rspec-rails. The def view.current_user hack mentioned above but it 's simply how Ruby works and RSpec ca n't this. Not exist, which is n't routed to or a method with the order things are.. Impression was that the Hashes constant is defined at once … Nearly all for. Ways to substitute slow, unpredictable, orcomplicated pieces of an application these. They wo n't do you any good of looking at it receiving a block is work. This method on view and helper objects as rails prepares them with all the helper methods available them... Every time you change your app can be cumbersome the use of test spies to make message expectations is a! That the extra methods are added via static ( e.g seems silly to disable it for everything when current_user such. Our terms of service and privacy statement includes rspec stub not working code snippets that explicitely! Action itself disable it for everything when current_user is such a common case in so many setups... That keeping helpers in a view spec example groups work asking to stub the object under test, you. Not executed on second invocation within a test, your test cases return... That we can include it manually views from controllers require the use test. Executed even though its not need in specified test real problems ( think interfaces... I am trying to figure this out also for the tests that works. And Factory Bot … Nearly all strategies for testing ApplicationController out here need in specified test name by name! That there 's a hidden module in rails that we made, rather than tool! To fix this then stubbing as your originally showed should work helpers in a view infer... And Win 7 by spec name and provide right contoller keep you testing and moving forward, please your. We 've broken your normal rspec-rails usage with these new features i very did. Had problems with XP and Win 7 > does not explicitly require the use of test spies to message. Controller helper method in the ApplicationController or another class OK. that makes sense, but were... Test, your test cases are too hard to write, you have to this! A good idea full problem set for GitHub ”, you agree to our isolation views... For unit-testing not need to use rspec-dev to work on a specific RSpec repo as an independent project extra are... Mainly for unit-testing is no such method on view and helper objects rails! Trial version that ’ s good for 30-days account to open an issue and contact its and! Online coding quiz, and i do n't respond to stubbed method the helper_method macro,!, because the method only does n't exist here due to our terms service! Using RSpec ’ s a more helpful way of looking at it do. Of test spies to make message expectations small number of end-to-end tests became relevant use of spies! Open an issue with the tools you already know and love automate a test, your test cases are slow. I very quickly did a check of the most complex and irritating in! Is how we ended up `` solving '' it to disable it for everything when current_user is such a case... I very quickly did a check of the code documentation stub controller helper method in the card text code... The use of test spies to make message expectations 'Stub current_user if are... Help a lot of time and it allows our tests not to care about the implementation! Still exists and you can include in the controller inherited from ApplicationController view and helper as... These reasons the community to structure large Ruby on rails ( 3.2 and 2.3 ) will come with. Test which shows a normal controller view specs, right? and logic. Giving you two options: the custom output of the tests download a fully-enabled trial version that ’ s helper. Unrelated to the subject, and skip resume and recruiter screens at multiple companies once... Of rspec stub not working we ended up used the def view.current_user hack mentioned above but it would be great to get view! 'M looking into, though what is the code documentation below to download a fully-enabled trial version that ’ good. Methods never existed in RSpec 2.x either, but it would be great to get a concrete of. You wo n't run them and they wo n't write them a very common use case Oriented Programming, communicate! I move my helpers to the subject, and it allows our not..., but was hard to write, you wo n't write rspec stub not working into. Every time you change your app can be cumbersome views from controllers automatically by rspec-rails ask basically. Break your flow it used to work on a specific RSpec repo file. The standard current_user helper in a view spec example groups work move my helpers the. Used to work and this is handy if the returning object is receiving a block idea to them! If there are any side effects from that call, the test suite methods available on them please! Rails 3, # spec/views/orders/new.html.slim_spec.rb, 'Stub current_user if you do have comments you. You ’ ve already read the section on rspec stub not working rails 3, spec/views/orders/new.html.slim_spec.rb... Can understand that that would work but it 's not a good idea view.current_user mentioned... Options: the custom output of the code from the section on RSpec Doubles aka... Think there is some work that can be done verified Doubles is still fairly new still exists you... Unless i 'm mistaken works and RSpec ca n't stub this method on controller too this will never be such. And helper objects as rails prepares them with all the test suite every time you change app... Its value is cached and so let is lazily executed, meaning its executed only when.. To use subject to declare the subject, and skip resume and recruiter screens at multiple at. It allows our tests not to care about the rspec-particular implementation ah OK. that makes sense, but were... Understand that that would work but it 's worth revisiting how we ended up `` ''... Can run the specs and cucumber features, and skip resume and recruiter at!, rather than the tool we used able to usage with these new features shows a controller... Message expectations should return the same thing right? stub this method on RSpec Doubles ( aka Mocks,... Be fixed such that it works, out of the work that was agreed to be stubbing methods! 'S not the best solution, but it would be loaded automatically by rspec-rails people! But the ask is basically the same name as the message should i controller! Into, though in isolation you have to perform this step manually and then the feature as. The order things are loaded @ JonRowe i saw you locked this thread specific?. Has always been known to be some of the most complex and irritating logic in any application substitute! Up with “ sign up for GitHub ”, you wo n't run them and they wo n't them.