Re: [rspec-users] Setting use_transactional_fixtures=false for a single spec - a bad idea?

[Peter Marklund]

> I'd set up a separate folder for these specs and tweak the rake tasks
> to run those specs in a separate process, w/ its own spec_helper that
> sets config.use_transactional_fixtures to false.

Thanks for the quick reply David! Sounds like your solution would be  
fairly easy to set up. For now though I'm running all my specs with  
use_transactional_fixtures=false. Slowed my specs down from about 6  
to 12 seconds.

Cheers

peter

___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

[rspec-users] Deprecating the mocking framework?

[Pat Maddox]

I saw in one of Dave C.'s comments to a ticket that "our current plan
is to deprecate the mocking framework."  I hadn't heard anything about
that, but then again I haven't paid super close attention to the list.
 Are we planning on dumping the mock framework in favor of using Mocha
(or any other framework one might want to plug in?).

Pat
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

[rspec-users] How to spec routes for a resource nested in multiples resources?

[Edgar Gonzalez]

Hi,

I got the resource "Llamadas" nested in:
- Operadores
- Productos
- Centros

Here is part of my routes http://pastie.caboo.se/92767

I want to spec that the routes for Llamadas, I tried several approachs:

- route_for(:controller => "llamadas", :action => "exitosas",
:operador_id => 1).should == "/operador/1/llamadas;exitosas"

- controller.send(:operador_exitosas_llamadas_path,@operador).should
== "/operador/22/llamadas;exitosas"

but nothing works.

any clue?

thanks in advance
-- 
Edgar González González
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hasmanydevelopers.com
http://www.rubycorner.com
http://www.to2blogs.com
http://www.lacaraoscura.com
--
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

Re: [rspec-users] Setting use_transactional_fixtures=false for a single spec - a bad idea?

[David Chelimsky]

On 8/31/07, Peter Marklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
> I would really like to find a way to allow me to write RSpec
> specifications for code that use database transactions. I know I can set
>
> config.use_transactional_fixtures = false
>
> in my spec_helper.rb. That works, and that's great, but it will (I
> think) slow down my specs quite a bit. I would like to turn off
> transactional fixtures for just a single spec (describe), or even
> better, just a single example (it). I tried this:
>
>before(:all) do
>  Spec::Runner.configure do |config|
>config.use_transactional_fixtures = false
>  end
>end
>
>after(:all) do
>  Spec::Runner.configure do |config|
>config.use_transactional_fixtures = true
>  end
>end
>
> but that didn't work.
>
> Or is setting use_transactional_fixtures=false on a global level
> really the way to go even if it slows you down? It certainly feels a
> lot cleaner and solid to me. Maybe I need more db stubbing.
>
> Thanks in advance for any pointers!

I'd set up a separate folder for these specs and tweak the rake tasks
to run those specs in a separate process, w/ its own spec_helper that
sets config.use_transactional_fixtures to false.

>
> Cheers
>
> Peter
> http://marklunds.com
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [rspec-users] Setting use_transactional_fixtures=false for a single spec - a bad idea?

[David Chelimsky]

On 8/31/07, Peter Marklund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
> I would really like to find a way to allow me to write RSpec
> specifications for code that use database transactions. I know I can set
>
> config.use_transactional_fixtures = false
>
> in my spec_helper.rb. That works, and that's great, but it will (I
> think) slow down my specs quite a bit. I would like to turn off
> transactional fixtures for just a single spec (describe), or even
> better, just a single example (it). I tried this:
>
>before(:all) do
>  Spec::Runner.configure do |config|
>config.use_transactional_fixtures = false
>  end
>end
>
>after(:all) do
>  Spec::Runner.configure do |config|
>config.use_transactional_fixtures = true
>  end
>end
>
> but that didn't work.
>
> Or is setting use_transactional_fixtures=false on a global level
> really the way to go even if it slows you down? It certainly feels a
> lot cleaner and solid to me. Maybe I need more db stubbing.
>
> Thanks in advance for any pointers!

I'd set up a separate folder for these specs and tweak the rake tasks
to run those specs in a separate process, w/ its own spec_helper that
sets config.use_transactional_fixtures to false.

>
> Cheers
>
> Peter
> http://marklunds.com
>
> ___
> 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

[rspec-users] Setting use_transactional_fixtures=false for a single spec - a bad idea?

[Peter Marklund]

Hi!
I would really like to find a way to allow me to write RSpec  
specifications for code that use database transactions. I know I can set

config.use_transactional_fixtures = false

in my spec_helper.rb. That works, and that's great, but it will (I  
think) slow down my specs quite a bit. I would like to turn off  
transactional fixtures for just a single spec (describe), or even  
better, just a single example (it). I tried this:

   before(:all) do
 Spec::Runner.configure do |config|
   config.use_transactional_fixtures = false
 end
   end

   after(:all) do
 Spec::Runner.configure do |config|
   config.use_transactional_fixtures = true
 end
   end

but that didn't work.

Or is setting use_transactional_fixtures=false on a global level  
really the way to go even if it slows you down? It certainly feels a  
lot cleaner and solid to me. Maybe I need more db stubbing.

Thanks in advance for any pointers!

Cheers

Peter
http://marklunds.com

___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

Re: [rspec-users] Testing for confidence - is this a spec at all?

[David Chelimsky]

On 8/31/07, Tom Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi BDDers
>
> Quick background: I'm working on the Hobo plugin for Rails which,
> amongst many things, automates a great deal of controller code for you.
>
> Hobo has a built in security mechanism, and the generic controller
> uses this to ensure that POSTs and PUTs only change the DB in ways
> you've permitted.
>
> I'm writing some rspec examples that test for holes in this security
> mechanism. My feeling is that this really is testing rather than
> specifying. I don't want to use mocks/stubs because I want to be
> absolutely sure that changes have not happened to the DB.
>
> For example, with stubs, I might say "Post.save should not be
> called", but there are other paths through AR that can result in that
> post being inserted into the DB. So I really want to say
>
>Post.find_by_title("test post").should == nil
>
> (where Post is the real thing, not a mock/stub)
>
> And my questions are.
>
> This is clearly not a spec as such, or a unit test. What is it? A
> functional test? An integration test?
>
> Where then does it belong?
>
> Should I be using rspec at all? (I want to because I spec other parts
> of Hobo and the whole rspec environment is step up and ready to go)
>
> (Note that I don't have any problems here as such - I'm writing these
> tests in rspec style and it's all working fine. I'm just fearful of
> what the BDDPD might say if they catch me! Well really I'm just
> curious as to what "good form" would be)

The subject of this thread says it all: 'testing for confidence'.
That's what all of this is about. It's all about YOU, the developer,
feeling confidence to take the next step. Driving with examples, if
done with discipline, means you automatically get 100% code coverage.
That gives you a lot of confidence to make a change, because you're
sure to get feedback if you screw it up.

Since these have a different feel in your mind, I'd certainly consider
moving them to their own directory. You might consider the new Story
Runner (trunk only, so far), that is designed to be more customer
facing and in direct support of requirements, running things end to
end (no mocks). The Story Runner comes from RBehave - so you can see
what it looks like here:
http://dannorth.net/2007/06/introducing-rbehave.

If you were doing a BDD project (kind of like an XP project), you'd
have User Stories that say specific things about security, and you'd
represent them in Story Runner. Then you'd deal with the individual
objects using the Example Runner (i.e. describe it). In that world,
you'd use mocks to isolate things. Although, even that tends to be
abused. The most visible model is Rails, which couples everything
together so much that you have to use mock models to avoid hitting the
DB from your view specs. But in non-rails projects, it's quite common
for mocks to appear and disappear in process - using them as discovery
tools, but then using the real objects as they appear. You can read
more about that at http://mockobjects.com.

Hope this all helps.

Cheers,
David
co-Captain
BDDPD

>
> Thanks muchly
>
> -Tom
>
> ___
> 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

[rspec-users] Testing for confidence - is this a spec at all?

[Tom Locke]

Hi BDDers

Quick background: I'm working on the Hobo plugin for Rails which,  
amongst many things, automates a great deal of controller code for you.

Hobo has a built in security mechanism, and the generic controller  
uses this to ensure that POSTs and PUTs only change the DB in ways  
you've permitted.

I'm writing some rspec examples that test for holes in this security  
mechanism. My feeling is that this really is testing rather than  
specifying. I don't want to use mocks/stubs because I want to be  
absolutely sure that changes have not happened to the DB.

For example, with stubs, I might say "Post.save should not be  
called", but there are other paths through AR that can result in that  
post being inserted into the DB. So I really want to say

   Post.find_by_title("test post").should == nil

(where Post is the real thing, not a mock/stub)

And my questions are.

This is clearly not a spec as such, or a unit test. What is it? A  
functional test? An integration test?

Where then does it belong?

Should I be using rspec at all? (I want to because I spec other parts  
of Hobo and the whole rspec environment is step up and ready to go)

(Note that I don't have any problems here as such - I'm writing these  
tests in rspec style and it's all working fine. I'm just fearful of  
what the BDDPD might say if they catch me! Well really I'm just  
curious as to what "good form" would be)

Thanks muchly

-Tom

___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

Re: [rspec-users] Can module spec "behave like" controller spec?

[David Chelimsky]

On 8/31/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/31/07, Shaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone:
> > Right now I am writing spec on modules, which are provided by my
> > colleagues. Some of the modules actually contain action methods. I tried
> > very hard to spec those action methods in modules. But it seems that  the
> > rspec does not allow module spec to 'get' action like controller does. After
> > I saw the documentation, I then used :behaviour_type=>:controller. However,
> > it failed again. It reported an error for me. For illustration, I'd like a
> > simple example.
> > module MyModule
> > def copy #an action method
> > render :partial=>"/index", :layout=>false
> > end
> > end
> >
> > describe MyModule, :behaviour_type=>:controller do
> > it "should render partial index" do
> > get 'copy' #test code not provided yet, just want to get the action
> > end
> > end
> > The error reported was: undefined method 'new' for MyModule:Module. Do you
> > guys have any idea of the error? And how should I test the action methods in
> > modules?
>
> The ControllerBehaviour is trying to instantiate MyModule. What you'd
> need to do is something like this:
>
> class ControllerThatUsesMyModule
>   include MyModule
> end
>
> describe ControllerThatUsesMyModule, :behaviour_type=>:controller do
>it "should render partial index" do
>get 'copy' #test code not provided yet, just want to get the action
>end
> end
>
> I haven't tried it, but it seems like it should work. Give it a whirl
> and report back please.

Of course, the subject of this thread should smack us all in the face
and point in a different direction:

describe "any controller", :shared => true do
   it "should render partial index" do
   get 'copy' #test code not provided yet, just want to get the action
   end
end

# an actual controller - not just for specs
class FooController
  include AnyController
end

# in spec/controllers/foo_controller_spec.rb
describe FooController do
  it_should_behave_like "any controller"
  ... #more stuff specific to FooController
end



>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> > Cheers!
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context: 
> > http://www.nabble.com/Can-module-spec-%22behave-like%22-controller-spec--tf4358891.html#a12422548
> > Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> > ___
> > 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

Re: [rspec-users] Can module spec "behave like" controller spec?

[David Chelimsky]

On 8/31/07, Shaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone:
> Right now I am writing spec on modules, which are provided by my
> colleagues. Some of the modules actually contain action methods. I tried
> very hard to spec those action methods in modules. But it seems that  the
> rspec does not allow module spec to 'get' action like controller does. After
> I saw the documentation, I then used :behaviour_type=>:controller. However,
> it failed again. It reported an error for me. For illustration, I'd like a
> simple example.
> module MyModule
> def copy #an action method
> render :partial=>"/index", :layout=>false
> end
> end
>
> describe MyModule, :behaviour_type=>:controller do
> it "should render partial index" do
> get 'copy' #test code not provided yet, just want to get the action
> end
> end
> The error reported was: undefined method 'new' for MyModule:Module. Do you
> guys have any idea of the error? And how should I test the action methods in
> modules?

The ControllerBehaviour is trying to instantiate MyModule. What you'd
need to do is something like this:

class ControllerThatUsesMyModule
  include MyModule
end

describe ControllerThatUsesMyModule, :behaviour_type=>:controller do
   it "should render partial index" do
   get 'copy' #test code not provided yet, just want to get the action
   end
end

I haven't tried it, but it seems like it should work. Give it a whirl
and report back please.

Cheers,
David

> Cheers!
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://www.nabble.com/Can-module-spec-%22behave-like%22-controller-spec--tf4358891.html#a12422548
> Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> 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

[rspec-users] Can module spec "behave like" controller spec?

[Shaker]

Hello everyone:
Right now I am writing spec on modules, which are provided by my
colleagues. Some of the modules actually contain action methods. I tried
very hard to spec those action methods in modules. But it seems that  the
rspec does not allow module spec to 'get' action like controller does. After
I saw the documentation, I then used :behaviour_type=>:controller. However,
it failed again. It reported an error for me. For illustration, I'd like a
simple example.
module MyModule
def copy #an action method
render :partial=>"/index", :layout=>false
end
end

describe MyModule, :behaviour_type=>:controller do
it "should render partial index" do
get 'copy' #test code not provided yet, just want to get the action
end
end
The error reported was: undefined method 'new' for MyModule:Module. Do you
guys have any idea of the error? And how should I test the action methods in
modules?
Cheers!


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Can-module-spec-%22behave-like%22-controller-spec--tf4358891.html#a12422548
Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users