sorry here it is http://gist.github.com/152123
On Jul 22, 1:02 pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:38 AM, amkirwan<amkir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Here is the code, > > Where? I don't see code pasted or a link to a gist. > > > > > > > I pasted the letter_controller.rb, > > letters_controller_spec.rb and the controllers macros.rb, thanks again > > for your help. > > > On Jul 22, 12:11 pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
