On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:52 AM, amkirwan<amkir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay I get the "and_return" part now thanks.
>
> Here is the error
>
> http://gist.github.com/152061
Well, the error seems quite clear. It's expecting a Letter and gets a Person.
I know you've posted bits of the code in this thread, but would you
mind posting the entire spec and controller code in a gist? At least
the code related to the show action.
Thanks,
David
>
> On Jul 22, 11:39 am, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM, amkirwan<amkir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Thanks for the help but I guess I am not getting something. How is
>> > @user= = mock_model(Person) and different then the following code:
>>
>> This is assigning the mock_model(Person) to a @user instance variable
>> in the spec. This is not the same user that is in the controller.
>>
>> > message = mock_model(Message)
>> > Message.stub!(:new).and_return message
>> > message.should_receive(:save)
>> > post :create
>>
>> This creates a mock_model(Message) and then tells Message to return it
>> when it receives :new, therefore message in the spec is the same
>> object as Message.new in the controller.
>>
>> > 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
>>
>> I'm not clear on what you mean by this. Would you please post the full
>> error message (either here or in a pastie or gist)?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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-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
>
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
