I am new to testing Rails web applications and RSpec. I work with legacy code and need to add tests. So what is the best way to test finders and named scopes with RSpec?
I find in Google a few approaches but they are not ideal. For example:
http://paulsturgess.co.uk/articles/show/93-using-rspec-to-test-a-named_scope-in-ruby-on-rails
it "excludes users that are not active" do
@user = Factory(:user, :active => false)
User.active.should_not include(@user)
end
or
http://h1labs.com/notebook/2008/8/21/testing-named-scope-with-rspec
it "should have a published named scope that returns ..." do
Post.published.proxy_options.should == {:conditions => {:published => true}}
end
I find best approach (IMHO) in "Rail Test Prescriptions":
should_match_find_method :active_only { :active == true }
where should_match_fi开发者_StackOverflow中文版nd_method
custom helper method
The creator of RSpec has recently blogged he thinks Validations are behavior, associations are structure. In other words he finds that associations (and scopes) should not nessesarily be tested directly. Tests for these will follow from the behavior you want.
In other words, current wisdom is that there is no need to test each scope directly, since you will cover these associations by testing the behavior of your application.
David Chelimsky testing scopes (updated)
David Chelimsky example, (linked by Sam Peacey's comment), modernised.
# app/models/user.rb
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
scope :admins, -> { where(admin: true) }
end
# spec/models/user_spec.rb
RSpec.describe User, type: :model do
describe ".admins" do
it "includes users with admin flag" do
admin = User.create!(admin: true)
expect(User.admins).to include(admin)
end
it "excludes users without admin flag" do
non_admin = User.create(admin: false)
expect(User.admins).not_to include(non_admin)
end
end
end
This produces a more 'spec-like' output (when using --format documentation):
User
.admins
includes users with admin flag
excludes users without admin flag
Note about origination of this answer:
David Chelimsky, the RSpec lead at the time, answered this question and Sam Peacey's link to it has more votes than the actual answer. The answer is not easy to find and follow as he is replying to someone and editing their answer in an email chain. This answer cleans that up and updates the RSpec code as, I guess, he would have written it today.
From https://coderwall.com/p/hc8ofa/testing-rails-model-default_scope-with-rspec
- no database queries
- no need to represent the query in a structure
Example:
class Trip < ActiveRecord::Base
default_scope { order(departure: :asc) }
...
end
RSpec.describe Trip, type: :model do
it "applies a default scope to collections by departure ascending" do
expect(Trip.all.to_sql).to eq Trip.all.order(departure: :asc).to_sql
end
end
The problem with the first approach is that it actually queries the database. It is slow and unnecessary. If you don't mind, you can safely use the first approach. The second approach is fast and clear so I would recommend it.
精彩评论