[rspec-users] Rspec approach to test model

[Kaleem Ullah]

Hi,

I am quite new to Rspec. I want to use Rspec to test my existing Code. I
start from Models (Unit Testing). Here i want your help on a issue.

Here is model/user_spec.rb

describe User do
before(:each) do
@user=User.new
@user.id='2'
@user.email='kk...@gmail.com'
@user.password='1234'
@user.crypted_password= '21066966a0578362e2115f3561bd4f144520ccd2'
@user.salt= '574f09d3ae2473105567eab77ba9d3ae08ed40df'
@user.remember_token= ''
@user.remember_token_expires_at= ''
@user.name= 'kaleem'
@user.company_id='2'
@user.title= ''
@user.active= '1'
@user.reset_password_token= ''
end

it "should authenticate with valid email,password and approved
company" do
User.authenticate(@user.email, @user.password).should_not be_nil
end

it "should NOT authenticate with INvalid email" do
@user.email=nil
User.authenticate(@user.email, @user.password).should be_nil
end

it "should NOT authenticate with INvalid password" do
@user.password=nil
User.authenticate(@user.email, @user.password).should be_nil
end

it "should remember me" do
@user.remember_me
@user.remember_token.should_not be_nil
@user.remember_token_expires_at.should_not be_nil
end

it "Remember Token time should be less than Token expires time" do
@user.remember_token?.should be_true
end

it "should forget me" do
@user.forget_me
@user.remember_token.should be_nil
@user.remember_token_expires_at.should be_nil
end
end

Now Questions:
1) is my approach or way of writing specs is right???
2) How can i make specs for such a model action

def activate!
self.update_attribute(:active, true)
end

Thank you :)
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec...@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

[Nick Hoffman]

Hi Kaleem. All of that looks pretty good so far, though you shouldn't
be setting the "id" attribute of an AR model:
@user.id = '2'

I suggest using the following format for creating your User object:

before(:each) do
@user = User.new(
:email => 'kk...@gmail.com',
:password => '1234',
# ..etc..
)
end

To spec your #activate! , why not do something like this?:

it 'should activate the user' do
@user.active.should be_false
@user.activate!
@user.active.should be_true
end

Cheers,
Nick

[Scott Taylor]

On Feb 11, 2009, at 8:51 AM, Kaleem Ullah wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am quite new to Rspec. I want to use Rspec to test my existing
> Code. I
> start from Models (Unit Testing). Here i want your help on a issue.
>
> Here is model/user_spec.rb
>
> describe User do
> before(:each) do
> @user=User.new
> @user.id='2'
> @user.email='kk...@gmail.com'
> @user.password='1234'
> @user.crypted_password= '21066966a0578362e2115f3561bd4f144520ccd2'
> @user.salt= '574f09d3ae2473105567eab77ba9d3ae08ed40df'
> @user.remember_token= ''
> @user.remember_token_expires_at= ''
> @user.name= 'kaleem'
> @user.company_id='2'
> @user.title= ''
> @user.active= '1'
> @user.reset_password_token= ''
> end

You could benefit from a factory / data builder. See
FixtureReplacement, Fixjour, Factory girl, one of the many others out
there which would build this stuff *once* for you.

Remember: there is no right way of doing things. Does it work for you
(and your team)? Is it clear?

>
> 2) How can i make specs for such a model action
>
> def activate!
> self.update_attribute(:active, true)
> end

spec1:
@user.activate!
@user.should be_active

spec 2:
@user.should_not be_active

Scott

[James Byrne]

Scott Taylor wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2009, at 8:51 AM, Kaleem Ullah wrote:
>

>> @user=User.new

>> @user.active= '1'
>> @user.reset_password_token= ''
>> end
>
> You could benefit from a factory / data builder. See
> FixtureReplacement, Fixjour, Factory girl, one of the many others out
> there which would build this stuff *once* for you.

Kaleem,

I recently installed nakajima-acts_as_fu (0.0.3) gem. This provides a
rather painless way of specifying ActiveRecord model schemata on the fly
in your specifications. You might find it helpful to look into this.

You will discover that some people favour mocks and stubs when dealing
with AR models in tests/specifications and some favour hitting the
database. Once you decide on your own preference in this matter the
choice of approach is somewhat simplified.

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

[Kaleem Ullah]

James Byrne wrote:

> I recently installed nakajima-acts_as_fu (0.0.3) gem. This provides a
> rather painless way of specifying ActiveRecord model schemata on the fly
> in your specifications. You might find it helpful to look into this.
>
> You will discover that some people favour mocks and stubs when dealing
> with AR models in tests/specifications and some favour hitting the
> database. Once you decide on your own preference in this matter the
> choice of approach is somewhat simplified.

Hi james byrne,

Good to know that.I will surely look for this gem......

Thanks :)

[Kaleem Ullah]

Nick Hoffman wrote:
> To spec your #activate! , why not do something like this?:
>
> it 'should activate the user' do
> @user.active.should be_false
> @user.activate!
> @user.active.should be_true
> end
>
>

Thanks for your reply Hoffman :)

I did the same but it gives error like "#23000Duplicate entry
'kk...@gmail.com Insert INTO (...) Values(...)".
It should do update not Insert.
But when i try call it with a new instance of user (with no values
assigned to any user attribute) then it works.
i.e.

it "should activate the user" do

@user1=User.new
@user1.activate!
end
This works.

I think i have to erase all the User attributes from "before (:each)"
and only assigned it in Examples which required it. am i right ?

Thanks

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

[Kaleem Ullah]

Scott Taylor wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2009, at 8:51 AM, Kaleem Ullah wrote:
>

>> @user=User.new

>> @user.active= '1'
>> @user.reset_password_token= ''
>> end
>
> You could benefit from a factory / data builder. See
> FixtureReplacement, Fixjour, Factory girl, one of the many others out
> there which would build this stuff *once* for you.

Hi Scott Taylor,

I am in need of such data builders.

So nice of you... :)

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

[Phlip]

Kaleem Ullah wrote:

> Scott Taylor wrote:

>> You could benefit from a factory / data builder. See
>> FixtureReplacement, Fixjour, Factory girl, one of the many others out
>> there which would build this stuff *once* for you.

> I am in need of such data builders.

I recently thumped the square peg of FixtureDependencies into the round hole of
Merb's RSpec.

http://github.com/jeremyevans/fixture_dependencies/tree/master

I can answer questions about it if anyone wants to try it.

Except how to make it do rake db:fixtures:load. Does anyone know that one?

--
Phlip

[Kaleem Ullah]

Hi all,
Below is my model action.

def activate!
self.update_attribute(:active, true)
end

here is spec/models/user_spec.rb

describe User do
before(:each) do

@user=User.new(:email=>'k...@gmail.com',:password='1234'....,)
end

This is my spec.

it "should activate the user" do

@user.activate!
@user.active.should be_true
end

but it gives error like "#23000Duplicate entry
'kk...@gmail.com Insert INTO (...) Values(...)".
It should do update not Insert.
But when i try call it with a new instance of user (with no values
assigned to any user attribute) then it works.
i.e.
it "should activate the user" do

@user_1=User.new
@user_1.activate!
@user_1.active.should be_true
end

[Joaquin Rivera Padron]

kaleem,
method new does not run your model validations, neither does your provided activate! implementation.
but save indeed does.
my guess is your mixing several contexts (cases, situations) in your single spec. Try decoupling all with more granular examples and you'll get to save shore :-)
cheers,
joaquin

[Yury Kotlyarov]

Hi,

I am trying to write custom matcher which accepts block to spec views
with forms/fieldsets/inputs eg

view:
---
<form action='/users'>
<fieldset>
<legend>Personal Information</legend>
<ol>
<li>
<label>First name</label>
<input type="text" name="user[first_name]" />
</li>
...
</ol>
</fieldset>
</form>

spec:
---

it "should have form with input fields" do
render ...
response.should have_form(users_path) do
with_field_set 'Personal Information' do
with_text_field 'First name', 'user[first_name]'
...
end
end
end

matches? of have_form:
---

def matches?(response, &block)
@block = block if block
response.should @scope.have_tag('form[action=?]', @action) do
@block.call.matches?(response)
end
end matches? of have_field_set: ---

def matches?(response, &block)

@block = block if block
response.should @scope.with_tag('fieldset') do
@scope.with_tag('legend', @legend) if @legend
@scope.with_tag('ol') do
@block.call.matches?(response)
end
end
end but I get: NoMethodError in '/users/new should have form with
input fields' undefined method `matches?' for true:TrueClass
./spec/views/users/../../custom_ui_matchers/with_field_set.rb:10:in
`matches?'
./spec/views/users/../../custom_ui_matchers/have_form.rb:11:in
`matches?'
./spec/views/users/../../custom_ui_matchers/have_form.rb:10:in
`matches?' ./spec/views/users/new.html.haml_spec.rb:17:
/usr/lib64/ruby/1.8/timeout.rb:53:in `timeout' something wrong with
yielding block? Gist: http://gist.github.com/62562 Thanks in advance, Yury

[David Chelimsky]

What does initialize look like?

[Yury Kotlyarov]

initialize for have_form:

class HaveForm def initialize(action, scope, &block)
@action, @scope, @block = action, scope, block
end ... end

def have_form(action, &block)
HaveForm.new(action, self, &block)
end

initialize for have_field_set:

class WithFieldSet
def initialize(scope, legend = nil, &block)
@scope, @legend, @block = scope, legend, block
end
end

def with_field_set(legend = nil, &block)
WithFieldSet.new(self, legend, &block)
end

btw I put it on gist: http://gist.github.com/62562

[Yury Kotlyarov]

SOLVED! just need to pass matched result to inner block. gist:
http://gist.github.com/62562

Many thanks,
Yury

[Yury Kotlyarov]

Yury Kotlyarov wrote:
> SOLVED! just need to pass matched result to inner block. gist:
> http://gist.github.com/62562
>
> Many thanks,
> Yury
>

I was wrong. It yields just one last line from the inner block. It
passes following:

it "should have form to create a new user" do
render '/users/new'

response.should have_form(users_path) do
with_field_set 'Personal Information' do

with_text_field 'wrong', 'wrong' # there is no such field
with_text_field 'First Name', 'user[first_name]'
end
end
end gist: http://gist.github.com/62562 TIA, Yury

[Phlip]

Yury Kotlyarov wrote:

> it "should have form with input fields" do
> render ...
> response.should have_form(users_path) do
> with_field_set 'Personal Information' do
> with_text_field 'First name', 'user[first_name]'
> ...
> end
> end
> end

The minor problem with that system is it forces your test to say exactly what
the code says. That's not "driven" development!

If you can forbear to use matchers (shocked gasp!), at my day-job we match
blocks all the time with assert2's new xpath system:

require 'assert2/xpath'

assert_xhtml response

xpath :form, :action => users_path do
xpath :fieldset, ?. => 'Personal Information' do
xpath :input, :type => 'text', :name => 'user[first_name]' and
xpath :input, :type => 'text', :name => 'user[last_name]'
end
end

From there, wrapping the xpath() calls up into kewt with_text_field() macros
would be trivial. They could also absolves the redundant 'user[]' text on the
names, for example.

If any inner xpath() fails, there, the fault diagnostic contains a formatted &
indented copy of the HTML block under inspection. The entire page would not spew
out! Only the <form> or <fieldset> would.

--
Phlip

[David Chelimsky]

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yury Kotlyarov wrote:
>
>> it "should have form with input fields" do
>> render ...
>> response.should have_form(users_path) do
>> with_field_set 'Personal Information' do
>> with_text_field 'First name', 'user[first_name]'
>> ...
>> end
>> end
>> end
>
> The minor problem with that system is it forces your test to say exactly
> what the code says. That's not "driven" development!
>
> If you can forbear to use matchers (shocked gasp!), at my day-job we match
> blocks all the time with assert2's new xpath system:
>
> require 'assert2/xpath'
>
> assert_xhtml response
>
> xpath :form, :action => users_path do
> xpath :fieldset, ?. => 'Personal Information' do
> xpath :input, :type => 'text', :name => 'user[first_name]' and
> xpath :input, :type => 'text', :name => 'user[last_name]'
> end
> end

Hey Philip,

This looks pretty cool. I wonder if you'd have any interest in making
this a bit more rspec-friendly? Something like an option to run it
like this:

expect_xpath do

[Phlip]

David Chelimsky wrote:

> This looks pretty cool. I wonder if you'd have any interest in making
> this a bit more rspec-friendly? Something like an option to run it
> like this:
>
> expect_xpath do

It's on my do-list, but...

...are pluggable matchers as hard to write as the OP implied? How would you fix
his problem? I need to know that before diving into the spaghetti that Ruby
inevitably generates, just below every kewt DSL!

[Yury Kotlyarov]

Phlip wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> This looks pretty cool. I wonder if you'd have any interest in making
>> this a bit more rspec-friendly? Something like an option to run it
>> like this:
>>
>> expect_xpath do
>
> It's on my do-list, but...
>
> ...are pluggable matchers as hard to write as the OP implied? How
> would you fix his problem? I need to know that before diving into the
> spaghetti that Ruby inevitably generates, just below every kewt DSL!
>

The major problem is fixed:
http://github.com/yura/howto-rspec-custom-matchers/

But there are still few open questions in README.rdoc

Regards,
Yury

[Phlip]

Yury Kotlyarov wrote:

> The major problem is fixed:
> http://github.com/yura/howto-rspec-custom-matchers/

Apologies if I missed something, but is that a howto or a library? Do I git it
and run it to ... learn to customize matchers?

[Yury Kotlyarov]

Phlip wrote:
> Yury Kotlyarov wrote:
>
>> The major problem is fixed:
>> http://github.com/yura/howto-rspec-custom-matchers/
>
> Apologies if I missed something, but is that a howto or a library? Do
> I git it and run it to ... learn to customize matchers?
>

RSpec is a library ;-) And I have some issues with writing custom
matchers using rspec. Now I fixed my major showstopper but still have
open questions in the README.rdoc. Of course I hope this project will
help others to avoid issues I faced.

[Phlip]

>>> http://github.com/yura/howto-rspec-custom-matchers/

> RSpec is a library ;-)

Please try again: What is that source code drop. A website? A library? or
something else?

[Yury Kotlyarov]

Phlip wrote:
>>>> http://github.com/yura/howto-rspec-custom-matchers/
>
>> RSpec is a library ;-)
>
> Please try again: What is that source code drop. A website? A library?
> or something else?
>

ok - from README:

The project aims to encourage feedback on the best practices of creating
custom expectation matchers and specs for them.

Does it make sense?

[Phlip]

Yury Kotlyarov wrote:

>>>>> http://github.com/yura/howto-rspec-custom-matchers/

> The project aims to encourage feedback on the best practices of creating
> custom expectation matchers and specs for them.
>
> Does it make sense?

That just says it's a "project".

One git clone later... It is a Rails 2.3.0 website!

TX; I will now go spelunking down inside it for a while. Wish me luck! (-;

[Yury Kotlyarov]

Phlip wrote:
> Yury Kotlyarov wrote:
>
>>>>>> http://github.com/yura/howto-rspec-custom-matchers/
>
>> The project aims to encourage feedback on the best practices of
>> creating custom expectation matchers and specs for them.
>>
>> Does it make sense?
>
> That just says it's a "project".
>
> One git clone later... It is a Rails 2.3.0 website!
>
> TX; I will now go spelunking down inside it for a while. Wish me luck!
> (-;

Yes, rails 2.3 app is just an environment to custom matchers
spec'ing/development. You can clone the git repo and just `rake spec` to
see my issues...

Those matchers (spec/lib/custom_ui_matchers/*) will be used in my real
project tho. But I still have minor issues which are listed in Open
questions section. Comments/remarks on the specs/code/etc are welcome!

Good luck!

[Phlip]

Yury Kotlyarov wrote:
> Phlip wrote:
>> Yury Kotlyarov wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> http://github.com/yura/howto-rspec-custom-matchers/
>>
>>> The project aims to encourage feedback on the best practices of
>>> creating custom expectation matchers and specs for them.
>>>
>>> Does it make sense?
>>
>> That just says it's a "project".
>>
>> One git clone later... It is a Rails 2.3.0 website!
>>
>> TX; I will now go spelunking down inside it for a while. Wish me luck!
>> (-;
>
> Yes, rails 2.3 app is just an environment to custom matchers
> spec'ing/development. You can clone the git repo and just `rake spec` to
> see my issues...

Special-needs programmer that I am, I declined to obtain the unreleased 2.3.0 of
Rails. I tweaked environment.rb back to 2.2.2.

That lead to a curious issue that an RSpec maintainer might understand:

----8<-----------------------------------------------------

$ rake spec

(in /home/phlip/projects/howto-rspec-custom-matchers)

/usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in
`gem_original_require': no such file to load -- application (MissingSourceFile)

from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in
`require'
from
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.2.2/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:155:in
`require'
from
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.2.2/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:262:in
`require_or_load'
from
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.2.2/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:221:in
`depend_on'
from
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.2.2/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:133:in
`require_dependency'
from
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-2.2.2/lib/action_controller/dispatcher.rb:18:in
`define_dispatcher_callbacks'
from
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.2.2/lib/active_support/callbacks.rb:182:in
`call'
from
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activesupport-2.2.2/lib/active_support/callbacks.rb:182:in
`evaluate_method'
... 19 levels...
from
/home/phlip/projects/howto-rspec-custom-matchers/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/example_group_runner.rb:14:in
`load_files'
from
/home/phlip/projects/howto-rspec-custom-matchers/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/options.rb:84:in
`run_examples'
from
/home/phlip/projects/howto-rspec-custom-matchers/vendor/plugins/rspec/lib/spec/runner/command_line.rb:9:in
`run'
from
/home/phlip/projects/howto-rspec-custom-matchers/vendor/plugins/rspec/bin/spec:4

----8<-----------------------------------------------------

Apologies for the ugly unformattable stack trace, but I don't know which lines
are important.

I fixed the "missing application.rb" error via brute force: cp `find . -name
application.rb`.

With a copy of application.rb in the root folder, 'rake spec' now works, and I
can see some "Not Yet Implemented" issues...

> Those matchers (spec/lib/custom_ui_matchers/*) will be used in my real
> project tho. But I still have minor issues which are listed in Open
> questions section. Comments/remarks on the specs/code/etc are welcome!

Well, the rake spec generally passed, so someone else will have to tell you
whatever it was you did wrong! (-:

--
Phlip
http://flea.sourceforge.net/PiglegToo_1.html

[Phlip]

> This looks pretty cool. I wonder if you'd have any interest in making
> this a bit more rspec-friendly? Something like an option to run it
> like this:

Here's the spec. The sauce is below my signature.

it 'should have a user form with the first name' do
render '/users/new'
response.body.should be_xml_with do
xpath :form, :action => '/users' do
xpath :fieldset do
xpath :'legend[ contains(., "Personal Information") ]' and
xpath :'label[ contains(., "First name") ]' and
xpath :input, :type => 'text', :name => 'user[first_name]'
end
end
end
end

Now, two issues. Firstly, what is the point of writing verbiage, designed for
review by the customer team, if they should not be expected to understand
hardcore engineering gibberish beginning with "body.should be_xml_with do"? A
sentence that is only partly English does more harm than good!

Secondly, when an xpath() fails, it prepares an elaborate and detailed analysis
of the entire situation, packs this into a flunk(), and raises it in a
Test::Unit::AssertionFailedError.

Then RSpec then throws all that stuff away, and provides an incorrect stack
trace to an internal error. Switching my 'user[first_name]' to
'user[first_nome]' provides this:

NoMethodError in '/users/new should have xpathic tags'
You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
You might have expected an instance of Array.
The error occurred while evaluating nil.first
./spec/views/users/new.html.erb_spec.rb:50:

So if I were to rescue my own AssertionFailedError, and pack it into a
failure_message, wouldn't that effort be redundant?

--
Phlip

require 'assert2/xpath'

Spec::Runner.configure do |c|
c.include Test::Unit::Assertions
end # TODO blog this

class BeXmlWith

def initialize(scope, &block)
@scope, @block = scope, block
end

def matches?(stwing, &block)
waz_xdoc = @xdoc

@block = block if block

@scope.assert_xhtml stwing
return (block || @block || proc{}).call
ensure
@xdoc = waz_xdoc
end

def failure_message
"yack yack yack"
end

def negative_failure_message
"yack yack yack"
end
end

def be_xml_with(&block)
BeXmlWith.new(self, &block)
end

[David Chelimsky]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This looks pretty cool. I wonder if you'd have any interest in making
>> this a bit more rspec-friendly? Something like an option to run it
>> like this:
>
> Here's the spec. The sauce is below my signature.
>
> it 'should have a user form with the first name' do
> render '/users/new'
> response.body.should be_xml_with do
> xpath :form, :action => '/users' do
> xpath :fieldset do
> xpath :'legend[ contains(., "Personal Information") ]' and
> xpath :'label[ contains(., "First name") ]' and
> xpath :input, :type => 'text', :name => 'user[first_name]'
> end
> end
> end
> end
>
> Now, two issues. Firstly, what is the point of writing verbiage, designed
> for review by the customer team, if they should not be expected to
> understand hardcore engineering gibberish beginning with "body.should
> be_xml_with do"? A sentence that is only partly English does more harm than
> good!

When RSpec is used as customer facing, they see the docstrings
(strings passed to describe() and it()), not the internal code. That's
for developers.

> Secondly, when an xpath() fails, it prepares an elaborate and detailed
> analysis of the entire situation, packs this into a flunk(), and raises it
> in a Test::Unit::AssertionFailedError.
>
> Then RSpec then throws all that stuff away, and provides an incorrect stack
> trace to an internal error. Switching my 'user[first_name]' to
> 'user[first_nome]' provides this:
>
> NoMethodError in '/users/new should have xpathic tags'
> You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> You might have expected an instance of Array.
> The error occurred while evaluating nil.first
> ./spec/views/users/new.html.erb_spec.rb:50:
>
> So if I were to rescue my own AssertionFailedError, and pack it into a
> failure_message, wouldn't that effort be redundant?

Take a look at http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/blob/f6c75b1417d9178d4dcaaf9e892e23474d340ff6/lib/spec/matchers/wrap_expectation.rb,
I think it'll solve this problem.

HTH,
David

[Phlip]

David Chelimsky wrote:

> When RSpec is used as customer facing, they see the docstrings
> (strings passed to describe() and it()), not the internal code. That's
> for developers.

Then why the .should stuff? I'm a developer - technically - and I never needed it!

But enough sophistry: Back to business...

> Take a look at http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/blob/f6c75b1417d9178d4dcaaf9e892e23474d340ff6/lib/spec/matchers/wrap_expectation.rb,
> I think it'll solve this problem.

This gives the same issue:

class BeXmlWith

def matches?(stwing, &block)
waz_xdoc = @xdoc

@scope.wrap_expectation self do

@scope.assert_xhtml stwing
return (block || @block || proc{}).call

end

ensure
@xdoc = waz_xdoc
end

attr_accessor :failure_message

The same error message for a stray nil:

1)
'/users/new should have xpathic tags' FAILED

You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
You might have expected an instance of Array.
The error occurred while evaluating nil.first
./spec/views/users/new.html.erb_spec.rb:50:

line 50 is just this one:

response.body.should be_xml_with do

and yes the response.body is populated...

--
Phlip

[Phlip]

> The same error message for a stray nil:

This attempt, calling simple_matcher directly, gives nearly the same nil:

def be_xml_with_(&block)
waz_xdoc = @xdoc
simple_matcher 'yo' do |given, matcher|
wrap_expectation matcher do
assert_xhtml given # this works
block.call # crashes with a nil.first error!
end

end
ensure
@xdoc = waz_xdoc
end

it 'should have xpathic tags' do
render '/users/new'

response.body.should be_xml_with{ # error points to this line

xpath :form, :action => '/users'

So why no stack trace so I can diagnose this?

[David Chelimsky]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>> When RSpec is used as customer facing, they see the docstrings
>> (strings passed to describe() and it()), not the internal code. That's
>> for developers.
>
> Then why the .should stuff? I'm a developer - technically - and I never
> needed it!

http://dannorth.net/introducing-bdd

That's the line you want to look at to know which example is failing.
To see the full backtrace, use the --backtrace (-b) option.

To learn about the various rspec options, use the --help (-h) option.

[Phlip]

David Chelimsky wrote:

> When RSpec is used as customer facing, they see the docstrings
> (strings passed to describe() and it()), not the internal code. That's
> for developers.

Then why the .should stuff? I'm a developer - technically - and I never needed it!

But enough sophistry: Back to business...

> Take a look at http://github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/blob/f6c75b1417d9178d4dcaaf9e892e23474d340ff6/lib/spec/matchers/wrap_expectation.rb,

> I think it'll solve this problem.

This gives the same issue:

class BeXmlWith

def matches?(stwing, &block)
waz_xdoc = @xdoc

@scope.wrap_expectation self do

@scope.assert_xhtml stwing
return (block || @block || proc{}).call

end

ensure
@xdoc = waz_xdoc
end

attr_accessor :failure_message

The same error message for a stray nil:

1)
'/users/new should have xpathic tags' FAILED

You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
You might have expected an instance of Array.
The error occurred while evaluating nil.first
./spec/views/users/new.html.erb_spec.rb:50:

line 50 is just this one:

response.body.should be_xml_with do

and yes the response.body is populated...

--
Phlip

_______________________________________________