Thanks for the help but I guess I am not getting something. How is
@user= = mock_model(Person) and different then the following code:
message = mock_model(Message)
Message.stub!(:new).and_return message
message.should_receive(:save)
post :create
def create
message = Message.new params[:new]
message.save
end
I guess I don't understand why assigns[:letter] is expecting a Person
instance instead of a Letter instance
On Jul 22, 10:42 am, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 9:12 AM, amkirwan<amkir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My spec is a messed up because I have tried everything I can think of
> > to mock but this is what I have for the show method. The @user
> > instance is setup in the login_and_before_filter_pass macros with the
> > following: @user = mock_model(Person, :null_object => true)
>
> > The error I keep receiving is that assigns[:letter].should equal
> > @letter keeps return that it is expecting a Person object instead of a
> > Letter object. The only way I can get it to pass is by putting
> > @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
> > directly in the "should assign the found letter for the view"
>
> > I feel like I must be missing something about how stubbing and mocking
> > work
>
> > # Get /admin/letters/1
> > def show
> > id = params[:id]
> > �...@letter = �...@user.letters.find(id)
> > end
>
> > describe Admin::LettersController, "SHOW GET /admin/letters/1" do
>
> > before(:each) do
> > �...@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
>
> This @user is an instance variable in the spec, and is not the same
> @user that is in the controller.
>
> HTH,
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> > end
>
> > def do_get
> > put :show, {:id => "1"}, @session
> > end
>
> > login_and_before_filter_pass(:filter => :admin_only,
> > :request_method => :get,
> > :action => :show,
> > :parameters => {:cas_user => 'ak730'})
>
> > it "should be successful" do
> > do_get
> > response.should be_success
> > end
>
> > it "should find the letter requested" do
> > �...@user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return(@letter)
> > puts(@letter)
> > do_get
> > end
>
> > it "should assign the found letter for the view" do
> > # uncommenting will allow to pass
> > # @user.letters.should_receive(:find).with("1").and_return
> > (@letter)
> > do_get
> > assigns[:letter].should equal(@letter)
> > end
>
> > it "should render show template" do
> > do_get
> > response.should render_template("show")
> > end
>
> > end
>
> > On Jul 22, 9:13 am, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, amkirwan<amkir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > How do I spec this following example from the Agile Rails Book listed
> >> > below. I am doing a similar thing in my controller and when I
> >> > attempted to change it to the collection way of doing the find I am
> >> > unable to get my spec to pass though I know it is working fine as my
> >> > cucumber features are passing
>
> >> > old rails way:
>
> >> > def show
> >> > @order = Order.find(params[:id])
> >> > end
>
> >> > new rails way collection-based:
>
> >> > def show
> >> > id = params[:id]
> >> > @order = @user.orders.find(id)
>
> >> This code is inherently untestable in an isolated/granular way. Your
> >> options are:
>
> >> * write higher level specs that use real data
> >> * pros: simplicity and clarity in both code and specs
> >> * cons: brittle due to runtime dependency on correct models, runs slow
>
> >> * write a very invasive spec with complex setup and instance_eval to
> >> set up the @user
> >> * pros: runs fast, no runtime dependency on correct models
> >> * cons: brittle due to dependency on internals, complex
>
> >> * refactor the code to make it easier to spec
> >> * pros: more highly decoupled code, simpler specs, fast
> >> * cons: more work up front, may disregard some of what Rails has to offer
>
> >> Note that the first two options are both brittle, but for different
> >> reasons. The first is brittle due to a runtime dependency. That means
> >> that when you run the spec the model has to be working correctly for
> >> the spec to pass, and a failure could be due to a problem in the model
> >> or in the controller.
>
> >> The second is due to a code dependency. That means that when you want
> >> to change this code, the spec will have to change as well. This is
> >> true of any case in which you use mocks or stubs to varying degrees,
> >> and that comes with its own tradeoffs. In this case, the necessary
> >> stubbing would be complex and invasive enough that it would be a
> >> concern to me.
>
> >> Getting to your original question - what does your spec look like now,
> >> and what failure message are you getting?
>
> >> Cheers,
> >> David
>
> >> > rescue
> >> > redirect_to :action => "index"
> >> > end
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > rspec-users mailing list
> >> > rspec-us...@rubyforge.org
> >> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rspec-users mailing list
> >> rspec-us...@rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us...@rubyforge.org
> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us...@rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
