Search Results

Search found 34 results on 2 pages for 'stubbing'.

Page 1/2 | 1 2  | Next Page >

  • Stubbing ActiveRecord result arrays

    - by Matthias
    Using Ruby 1.8.6, stubbing a finder method to return an Array does not work when the code under test calls the 'count' method on the result: User.any_instance.stubs(:friends).returns([user1, user2]) That's because Array.count has only been added in Ruby 1.8.7. Rails also adds a count method dynamically, I believe through the ActiveRecord::Calculations module. Is there any way to turn this result array into something that behaves exactly as the special Array kind returned by a Rails finder method? When paginating results, it's easy: I can simply call [].paginate. But that doesn't work with normal finder results. I tried [].extend(ActiveRecord::Calculations) but that doesn't work either.

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to undo Mocha stubbing of any_instance in Test::Unit

    - by Craig Walker
    Much like this question, I too am using Ryan Bates's nifty_scaffold. It has the desirable aspect of using Mocha's any_instance method to force an "invalid" state in model objects buried behind the controller. Unlike the question I linked to, I'm not using RSpec, but Test::Unit. That means that the two RSpec-centric solutions there won't work for me. Is there a general (ie: works with Test::Unit) way to remove the any_instance stubbing? I believe that it's causing a bug in my tests, and I'd like to verify that.

    Read the article

  • RSpec and stubbing parameters for a named scope

    - by Andy Waite
    I'm try to write a spec for a named scope which is date dependent. The spec: it "should return 6 months of documents" do Date.stub!(:today).and_return(Date.new(2005, 03, 03)) doc_1 = Factory.create(:document, :date => '2005-01-01') Document.past_six_months.should == [doc_1] end The named scope in the Document model: named_scope :past_six_months, :conditions => ['date > ? AND date < ?', Date.today - 6.months, Date.today] The spec fails with an empty array, and the query in test.log shows why: SELECT * FROM "documents" WHERE (date > '2009-11-11' AND date < '2010-05-11') i.e. it appears to be ignoring my stubbed Date method. However, if I use a class method instead of a named scope then it passes: def self.past_six_months find(:all, :conditions => ['date > ? AND date < ?', Date.today - 6.months, Date.today]) end I would rather use the named scope approach but I don't understand why it isn't working.

    Read the article

  • Stubbing an ActsAs Rails Plugin

    - by Rabbott
    I need to create a plugin much like Authlogic (or even just add on to Authlogic), but due to requirements beyond my control I need my plugin to authenticate using SOAP. Basically the plugin would require that anyone accessing the controller (before_filter would be fine) would have to authenticate first. I have ZERO control over the login page, or the SOAP server, I am simply a client attempting to authenticate to the providers SOAP Web Service. Here is what happens.. before_filter realizes that no session[:credential] is set, and forwards the user to the url on the providers servers. The user enters their credentials, and once authenticated, the web service forwards the user to a URL that has been entered by their sysadmins, attaching a token to the url on its way back. I need to take that token, append it to some parameters stored in a local YAML file, and make the SOAP call to the providers server. If all goes as planned, I need to set session[:credential] to the result of the SOAP call, and forward the user to the root page. Subsequent calls to the before_filter will not make the SOAP call, because session[:credential] is set. Ideally I think this would be awesome to slap on top of Authlogic, but I'm not sure how to do this, So I started to create my own acts_as_soap_authentic plugin, which isn't causing errors, but doesn't do anything.. Anyone have any pointers, or tips as to how I can get the ball rolling here? It seems simple, but is proving not to be..

    Read the article

  • Stubbing a before_filter with RSpec

    - by TheDelChop
    Guys, I'm having trouble understanding why I can't seem to stub this controller method :load_user, since all of my tests fail if I change the actual implementation of :load_user to not return and instance of @user. Can anybody see why my stub (controller.stub!(:load_user).and_return(@user)) seems to fail to actually get called when RSpec makes a request to the controller? require 'spec_helper' describe TasksController do before(:each) do @user = Factory(:user) sign_in @user @task = Factory(:task) User.stub_chain(:where, :first).and_return(@user) controller.stub!(:load_user).and_return(@user) end #GET Index describe "GET Index" do before(:each) do @tasks = 7.times{Factory(:task, :user = @user)} @user.stub!(:tasks).and_return(@tasks) end it "should should find all of the tasks owned by a user" do @user.should_receive(:tasks).and_return(@tasks) get :index, :user_id = @user.id end it "should assign all of the user's tasks to the view" do get :index, :user_id = @user.id assigns[:tasks].should be(@tasks) end end #GET New describe "GET New" do before(:each) do @user.stub_chain(:tasks, :new).and_return(@task) end it "should return a new Task" do @user.tasks.should_receive(:new).and_return(@task) get :new, :user_id = @user.id end end #POST Create describe "POST Create" do before(:each) do @user.stub_chain(:tasks, :new).and_return(@task) end it "should create a new task" do @user.tasks.should_receive(:new).and_return(@task) post :create, :user_id = @user.id, :task = @task.to_s end it "saves the task" do @task.should_receive(:save) post :create, :user_id = @user.id, :task = @task end context "when the task is saved successfully" do before(:each) do @task.stub!(:save).and_return(true) end it "should set the flash[:notice] message to 'Task Added Successfully'"do post :create, :user_id = @user.id, :task = @task flash[:notice].should == "Task Added Successfully!" end it "should redirect to the user's task page" do post :create, :user_id = @user.id, :task = @task response.should redirect_to(user_tasks_path(@user.id)) end end context "when the task isn't saved successfully" do before(:each) do @task.stub(:save).and_return(false) end it "should return to the 'Create New Task' page do" do post :create, :user_id = @user.id, :task = @task response.should render_template('new') end end end it "should attempt to authenticate and load the user who owns the tasks" do context "when the tasks belong to the currently logged in user" do it "should set the user instance variable to the currently logged in user" do pending end end context "when the tasks belong to another user" do it "should set the flash[:notice] to 'Sorry but you can't view other people's tasks.'" do pending end it "should redirect to the home page" do pending end end end end class TasksController < ApplicationController before_filter :load_user def index @tasks = @user.tasks end def new @task = @user.tasks.new end def create @task = @user.tasks.new if @task.save flash[:notice] = "Task Added Successfully!" redirect_to user_tasks_path(@user.id) else render :action => 'new' end end private def load_user if current_user.id == params[:user_id].to_i @user = User.where(:id => params[:user_id]).first else flash[:notice] = "Sorry but you can't view other people's tasks." redirect_to root_path end end end Can anybody see why my stub doesnt' work? Like I said, my tests only pass if I make sure that load_user works, if not, all my tests fail which makes my think that RSpec isn't using the stub I created. Thanks, Joe

    Read the article

  • Groovy: stub typed reference

    - by Don
    Hi, I have a Groovy class similar to class MyClass { Foo foo } Under certain circumstances I don't want to initialize foo and want to stub out all the calls to it. Any methods that return a value should do nothing. I could do it like this: Foo.metaClass.method1 = {param -> } Foo.metaClass.method2 = { -> } Foo.metaClass.method3 = {param1, param2 -> } While this will work, it has a couple of problems Tedious and long-winded, particularly if Foo has a lot of methods This will stub out calls to any instance of Foo (not just foo) Although Groovy provides a StubFor class, if I do this: this.foo = new groovy.mock.interceptor.StubFor(Foo) I get a ClassCastException at runtime. Although this would work if I could redefine foo as: def foo But for reasons I won't go into here, I can't do that. Thanks, Don

    Read the article

  • Difference in techniques for setting a stubbed method's return value with Rhino Mocks

    - by CRice
    What is the main difference between these following two ways to give a method some fake implementation? I was using the second way fine in one test but in another test the behaviour can not be achieved unless I go with the first way. These are set up via: IMembershipService service = test.Stub<IMembershipService>(); so (the first), using (test.Record()) //test is MockRepository instance { service.GetUser("dummyName"); LastCall.Return(new LoginUser()); } vs (the second). service.Stub(r => r.GetUser("dummyName")).Return(new LoginUser()); Edit The problem is that the second technique returns null in the test, when I expect it to return a new LoginUser. The first technique behaves as expected by returning a new LoginUser. All other test code used in both cases is identical.

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to undo Mocha stubbing of any_instance?

    - by Steve Weet
    Within my controller specs I am stubbing out valid? for some routing tests, (based on Ryan Bates nifty_scaffold) as follows :- it "create action should render new template when model is invalid" do Company.any_instance.stubs(:valid?).returns(false) post :create response.should render_template(:new) end This is fine when I test the controllers in isolation. I also have the following in my model spec it "is valid with valid attributes" do @company.should be_valid end Again this works fine when tested in isolation. The problem comes if I run spec for both models and controllers. The model test always fails as the valid? method has been stubbed out. Is there a way for me to remove the stubbing of any_instance when the controller test is torn down. I have got around the problem by running the tests in reverse alphabetic sequence to ensure the model tests run before the controllers but I really don't like my tests being sequence dependant.

    Read the article

  • Node.JS testing with Jasmine, databases, and pre-existing code

    - by Jim Rubenstein
    I've recently built the start of a core system which is likely going turn into a monster product. I'm building the system with node.js, and decided after I got a small base built, that It'd be a great idea to start using some sort of automated test suite to test the application. I decided to use jasmine, as it seems pretty solid and has a lot of features for stubbing spying and mocking methods and classes. The application has a lot of external data stores and api access (kestrel, mysql, mongodb, facebook, and more). My issue is, I've got a good amount of code written that I want to start testing - as it represents the underpinnings of the application. What are the best practices for testing methods/classes that access external APIs that I may or may not have control over? As an example, I have a data structure that fetches a bunch of data from a MySQL database. I want to test the method that retrieves the data; and I'm not sure how to go about it. I could test the fetch method which is supposed to return an array of objects, but to isolate the method from the database, I need to define my own fixture data. So what I end up doing is stubbing the mysql execution, and returning a static dataset. So, I end up writing a function that returns the dataset that makes my test pass. That doesn't seem to actually test the code, other than verifying a method is being called. I know this is kind of abstract and vague, it seems that the idea of testing is very much abstract though, so hopefully someone has some experience and can guide me in the right direction. Any advice, or reading I can do is more than welcomed. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Need help understanding Mocks and Stubs

    - by Theomax
    I'm new to use mocking frameworks and I have a few questions on the things that I am not clear on. I'm using Rhinomocks to generate mock objects in my unit tests. I understand that mocks can be created to verify interactions between methods and they record the interactions etc and stubs allow you to setup data and entities required by the test but you do not verify expectations on stubs. Looking at the recent unit tests I have created, I appear to be creating mocks literally for the purpose of stubbing and allowing for data to be setup. Is this a correct usage of mocks or is it incorrect if you're not actually calling verify on them? For example: user = MockRepository.GenerateMock<User>(); user.Stub(x => x.Id = Guid.NewGuid()); user.Stub(x => x.Name = "User1"); In the above code I generate a new user mock object, but I use a mock so I can stub the properties of the user because in some cases if the properties do not have a setter and I need to set them it seems the only way is to stub the property values. Is this a correct usage of stubbing and mocking? Also, I am not completely clear on what the difference between the following lines is: user.Stub(x => x.Id).Return(new Guid()); user.Stub(x => x.Id = Guid.NewGuid());

    Read the article

  • If your unit test code "smells" does it really matter?

    - by Buttons840
    Usually I just throw my unit tests together using copy and paste and all kind of other bad practices. The unit tests usually end up looking quite ugly, they're full of "code smell," but does this really matter? I always tell myself as long as the "real" code is "good" that's all that matters. Plus, unit testing usually requires various "smelly hacks" like stubbing functions. How concerned should I be over poorly designed ("smelly") unit tests?

    Read the article

  • How do you navigate and refactor code written in a dynamic language?

    - by Philippe Beaudoin
    I love that writing Python, Ruby or Javascript requires so little boilerplate. I love simple functional constructs. I love the clean and simple syntax. However, there are three things I'm really bad at when developing a large software in a dynamic language: Navigating the code Identifying the interfaces of the objects I'm using Refactoring efficiently I have been trying simple editors (i.e. Vim) as well as IDE (Eclipse + PyDev) but in both cases I feel like I have to commit a lot more to memory and/or to constantly "grep" and read through the code to identify the interfaces. As for refactoring, for example changing method names, it becomes hugely dependent on the quality of my unit tests. And if I try to isolate my unit tests by "cutting them off" the rest of the application, then there is no guarantee that my stub's interface stays up to date with the object I'm stubbing. I'm sure there are workarounds for these problems. How do you work efficiently in Python, Ruby or Javascript?

    Read the article

  • Moving from mock to real objects?

    - by jjchiw
    I'm like doing TDD so I started everything mocking objects, creating interface, stubbing, great. The design seems to work, now I'll implement the stuff, a lot of the code used in the stubs are going to be reused in my real implementation yay! Now should I duplicate the tests to use the real object implementation (but keeping the mocks object of the sensitive stuff like Database and "services" that are out of my context (http calls, etc...)) Or just change the mocks and stubs of the actual tests to use the real objects....... So the question is that, keep two tests or replace the stubs, mocks? And after that, I should keep designing with the mocks, stubs or just go with real objects? (Just making myself clear I'll keep the mock object of the sensitive stuff like database and services that are out of my context, in both situations.)

    Read the article

  • Is it a good idea to mock/stub in integration tests?

    - by ez
    Say there are multiple requests in a integration test, some of them are sphinx calls(locator for example). Should we just stub out the entire response of these sphinx call, or, since it is a integration test, we want to excise the entire test without stubbing. If that is the case, how do we still keep test independent in the situation when sphinx fails, no internet connection, or third party server non-responsive. Give reasons. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How can Agile methodologies be adapted to High Volume processing system development?

    - by luckyluke
    I am developing high volume processing systems. Like mathematical models that calculate various parameters based on millions of records, calculated derived fields over milions of records, process huge files having transactions etc... I am well aware of unit testing methodologies and if my code is in C# I have no problem in unit testing it. Problem is I often have code in T-SQL, C# code that is a SQL stored assembly, and SSIS workflow with a good amount of logic (and outcomes etc) or some SAS process. What is the approach YOu use when developing such systems. I usually develop several tests as Stored procedures in a designed schema(TEST) and then automatically run them overnight and check out the results. But this is only for T-SQL. And Continous integration IS hard. But the problem is with testing SSIS packages. How do You test it? What is Your preferred approach for stubbing data into tables (especially if You need a lot data initialization). I have some approach derived over the years but maybe I am just not reading enough articles. So Banking, Telecom, Risk developers out there. How do You test your mission critical apps that process milions of records at end day, month end etc? What frameworks do You use? How do You validate that Your ssis package is Correct (as You develop it)/ How do You achieve continous integration in such an environment (Personally I never got there)? I hope this is not to open-ended question. How do You test Your map-reduce jobs for example (i do not use hadoop but this is quite similar). luke Hope that this is not too open ended

    Read the article

  • How to sell logistical procedures that require less time to perform but more finesse?

    - by foampile
    I am working with a group where part of the responsibilities is managing a certain set of configuration files which, of course, have the same skeleton/structure across different environments but different values (like server, user, this setting, that setting etc.). Pretty classic scenario... The problem is that everyone just goes and modifies final, environment-specific files and basically repeats the work for every environment. Personally, I am offended to have to peform repeatable, mundane tasks in this day and age when we have technologies to automate it all. So I devised a very simple procedure of abstracting the files into templates, stubbing env-specific values with parameters and then wrote a simple Perl script that, given a template and an environment matrix with env-specific values for each param, produces the final file. So this is nothing special, cutting-edge or revolutionary -- I am pretty sure that 20 years ago efficient places did their CM like that. However, that requires that changes are made at the template level and then distributed across different environments using the script and not making changes in the final environment-specific files. This is where I am encountering resentment as they feel "comfortable" doing it their old, manual, repeated labor way. Personally, I don't have a problem with them working hard rather than smart but the problem is when I have to build on top of someone else's changes, I have to merge their changes into my template from a specific file, which takes time and is grueling. So my question is how to go about selling my method, which makes it so much faster in an environment that is resentful to change and where most things have to be done at the level of the least competent team member?

    Read the article

  • How to properly match varargs in Mockito

    - by qualidafial
    I've been trying to get to mock a method with vararg parameters using Mockito: interface A { B b(int x, int y, C... c); } A a = mock(A.class); B b = mock(B.class); when(a.b(anyInt(), anyInt(), any(C[].class))).thenReturn(b); assertEquals(b, a.b(1, 2)); This doesn't work, however if I do this instead: when(a.b(anyInt(), anyInt())).thenReturn(b); assertEquals(b, a.b(1, 2)); This works, despite that I have completely omitted the varargs argument when stubbing the method. Any clues?

    Read the article

  • How do I stub a view in rspec-2

    - by Trey Bean
    I'm in the process of upgrading an app to Rails 3/Rspec 2. I see that stubbing a view helper method has changed in Rspec 2. It looks like instead of doing template.stub!, we're now supposed to do view.stub!, but I can't seem to get this to work on beta 10. I get an "undefined local variable or method `view' for # < RSpec::Core::ExampleGroup::Nested_1::Nested_1::Nested_1:0x106785fd0" error. I see that in this commit David removed the view method, but I can't figure out what it was replaced with. Something in ActionView::TestCase::Behavior? I'm on rails 3.0.0.beta3. Any idea what I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • Best practice Unit testing abstract classes?

    - by Paul Whelan
    Hello I was wondering what the best practice is for unit testing abstract classes and classes that extend abstract classes. Should I test the abstract class by extending it and stubbing out the abstract methods and then test all the concrete methods? Then only test the methods I override and the abstract methods in the unit tests for objects that extend my abstract class. Should I have an abstract test case that can be used to test the methods of the abstract class and extend this class in my test case for objects that extend the abstract class? EDIT: My abstract class has some concrete methods. I would be interested to see what people are using. Thanks Paul

    Read the article

  • How to mock test a web service in PHPUnit across multiple tests?

    - by scraton
    I am attempting to test a web service interface class using PHPUnit. Basically, this class makes calls to a SoapClient object. I am attempting to test this class in PHPUnit using the "getMockFromWsdl" method described here: http://www.phpunit.de/manual/current/en/test-doubles.html#test-doubles.stubbing-and-mocking-web-services However, since I want to test multiple methods from this same class, every time I setup the object, I also have to setup the mock WSDL SoapClient object. This is causing a fatal error to be thrown: Fatal error: Cannot redeclare class xxxx in C:\web\php5\PEAR\PHPUnit\Framework\TestCase.php(1227) : eval()'d code on line 15 How can I use the same mock object across multiple tests without having to regenerate it off the WSDL each time? That seems to be the problem.

    Read the article

  • How do you go from an abstract project description to actual code?

    - by Jason
    Maybe its because I've been coding around two semesters now, but the major stumbling block that I'm having at this point is converting the professor's project description and requirements to actual code. Since I'm currently in Algorithms 101, I basically do a bottom-up process, starting with a blank whiteboard and draw out the object and method interactions, then translate that into classes and code. But now the prof has tossed interfaces and abstract classes into the mix. Intellectually, I can recognize how they work, but am stubbing my toes figuring out how to use these new tools with the current project (simulating a web server). In my professors own words, mapping the abstract description to Java code is the real trick. So what steps are best used to go from English (or whatever your language is) to computer code? How do you decide where and when to create an interface, or use an abstract class?

    Read the article

  • Simple Moq ? - Problem with .Verify

    - by user127954
    Hi, just a simple question here. I've used Moq for awhile but, as of yet, have only used it for stubbing and not for mocking. I am trying to introduce our developers to unit testing. I set up a simple example to explain the concepts but i can't seem to get it working. Probably something simple so i thought i would just ask you all to see what i'm doing wrong: <Test()> _ Public Sub Divide_DivideByZero_LogsError() Dim mock = New Mock(Of ILogger) With mock Dim calc = New MyCalculator(New CalculatorData, .Object) calc.Divide(55, 0) mock.Object.WriteError("test", "Test") .Verify(Function(x) CType(x,ILogger).WriteError(it.IsAny(of String),It.IsAny(Of String)))) End With End Sub I'm using Moq version 3.2.416.3. I get an error on the .verify telling me that i'm calling it with incorrect arguments. I'm just trying to verify that .WriteError was called. any help would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How to test obtaining a list of files within a directory using RSpec?

    - by John Topley
    I'm pretty new to the world of RSpec. I'm writing a RubyGem that deals with a list of files within a specified directory and any sub-directories. Specifically, it will use Find.find and append the files to an Array for later output. I'd like to write a spec to test this behaviour but don't really know where to start in terms of faking a directory of files and stubbing Find.find etc. This is what little I have so far: it "should return a list of files within the specified directory" do end Any help much appreciated!

    Read the article

1 2  | Next Page >