Id getting overwritten with 0 when testing

My code that saves a record works fine in development or production, or
from the console. I can take the code in my test and run it in the
console, and it works fine.

But when I run it under a model rspec, the ids are getting set to 0. Ive
traced it through to where I do:

.create

where I can see that the id is what I want to set it to in params.

Same problem with rspec 2.6 and 2.8.

Dont make me switch to Test::Unit. Anyone?

It’d be nice to have a bit of context for this issue.

It’s most likely an issue with your model’s validation…

Julian

On Jan 24, 2012, at 11:27 PM, Julian L. wrote:

Same problem with rspec 2.6 and 2.8.

Dont make me switch to Test::Unit. Anyone?
It’d be nice to have a bit of context for this issue.

It’s most likely an issue with your model’s validation

Not sure what else to tell you. Ive a complex bit of logic I want to
exercise thats accepting a hierarchy of objects submitted to the
application as JSON. The controller pulls it apart into a hierarchical
key-value hash. Ive a recursive operation that walks this structure,
pulling out individual objects and saving them.

Everything works fine when I test it manually (e.g. in console). When I
run the same sequence of operations with the same values in console
(i.e. I tested it by copying the values and operations out of the spec
into the console), it all works fine.

But it all fails horribly in rspec because the ids are getting
overwritten with 0s. I can get to the point in my code where I hand
things over to ActiveRecord, and the hash Im giving to create is exactly
what Im after including the id value.

FWIW, the ids Im trying to use are UUIDs.

Since Im entirely sure the hash Im handing to create is correct, Im left
with trying to grub around inside ActiveRecord, which I dont look
forward to. So: in what way does RSpec modify the behavior of
ActiveRecord that might bear on this?

On Jan 25, 2012, at 12:43 AM, Guyren G Howe wrote:

http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
http://ariejan.net/2008/08/12/ruby-on-rails-uuid-as-your-activerecord-primary-key

Make sure the column is 16-byte binary

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Justin Ko wrote:

http://ariejan.net/2008/08/12/ruby-on-rails-uuid-as-your-activerecord-primary-key

Make sure the column is 16-byte binary

And be sure to update your test database’s schema so that it behaves the
same as your other environments:

rake db:test:clone_structure

Patrick J. Collins
http://collinatorstudios.com

On Jan 25, 2012, at 1:42 AM, Patrick J. Collins wrote:

rake db:test:clone_structure

You actually want to use “rake db:test:prepare”. It does the same thing
as “clone_structure” but doesn’t create the nasty structure.sql file.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7693365/whats-the-difference-between-dbtestclone-dbtestclone-structure-dbtestlo

See that’s HEAPS better! More information.

Pffft … not sure what else to tell us!

Okay so NOW to me it sounds a lot like you’re using a non-integer as a
primary key which I wouldn’t do…

And also, could it not be a string coersion issue? (ie params coersion)

Julian

On Jan 25, 2012, at 3:44 AM, Julian L. wrote:

Okay so NOW to me it sounds a lot like you’re using a non-integer as a primary
key which I wouldn’t do…

I dont think youve tried to write a server app that synchronizes with
handheld apps over an unreliable internet connection. UUIDs make things
so much easier.

The decision about the pks is made. Am I understanding from folks here
that rspec wont work without integer primary keys? That is a major
design flaw, if true.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:37 PM, David C. [email protected]
wrote:

with Rails and extends T/U. I’m not sure I understand the problem yet,
but I’d be really surprised if it’s anything RSpec is doing or failing
to do.

What versions of RSpec and Rails are you using?

Just looked back at your initial email and see you cited rspec-2.8,
but the way Rails handles incoming params in tests changed in either
3.1 or 3.2 (I have to check). Which rails version specifically?

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Guyren G Howe [email protected]
wrote:

On Jan 25, 2012, at 3:44 AM, Julian L. wrote:

Okay so NOW to me it sounds a lot like you’re using a non-integer as a primary
key which I wouldn’t do…

I dont think youve tried to write a server app that synchronizes with handheld
apps over an unreliable internet connection. UUIDs make things so much easier.

The decision about the pks is made. Am I understanding from folks here that
rspec wont work without integer primary keys? That is a major design flaw, if
true.

RSpec provides a thin wrapper around the testing framework that ships
with Rails and extends T/U. I’m not sure I understand the problem yet,
but I’d be really surprised if it’s anything RSpec is doing or failing
to do.

What versions of RSpec and Rails are you using?

On Jan 25, 2012, at 1:45 PM, David C. wrote:

Just looked back at your initial email and see you cited rspec-2.8,
but the way Rails handles incoming params in tests changed in either
3.1 or 3.2 (I have to check). Which rails version specifically?

3.1.

Since I was always going to be providing a UUID for the pk, I didnt
even bother changing the default value for the pk in the schema. Im
going to try fixing that and see if its any better.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Guyren G Howe [email protected]
wrote:

On Jan 25, 2012, at 1:45 PM, David C. wrote:

Just looked back at your initial email and see you cited rspec-2.8,
but the way Rails handles incoming params in tests changed in either
3.1 or 3.2 (I have to check). Which rails version specifically?

3.1.

Since I was always going to be providing a UUID for the pk, I didnt even
bother changing the default value for the pk in the schema. Im going to try fixing
that and see if its any better.

I’d start by debugging to see where the wheels fall off. Are you
familiar/comfortable with Ruby’s debugger?

On Jan 25, 2012, at 1:56 PM, David C. wrote:

I’d start by debugging to see where the wheels fall off. Are you
familiar/comfortable with Ruby’s debugger?

Sure.

Whats happening is that during the save process, I get to field_changed?
in dirty.rb, which does

value = column.type_cast(value)

when I look at column here, it believes @sql_type = integer. Which seems
weird.

So at this point, it occurs to me to check this against my test
database, and the columns in the test database are indeed integers! How
does this come to be?

On Jan 25, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Guyren G Howe wrote:

when I look at column here, it believes @sql_type = integer. Which seems weird.

So at this point, it occurs to me to check this against my test database, and
the columns in the test database are indeed integers! How does this come to be?

And note that

rake db:test:load

doesnt change anything.

On Jan 25, 2012, at 6:20 PM, Guyren H. wrote:

doesnt change anything.


rspec-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

Please paste the table from your schema.rb file.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Guyren H. [email protected] wrote:

doesnt change anything.
I’m not sure what rake db:test:load actually does, but RAILS_ENV=test rake db:reset should probably do the trick.

What db are you using, btw?

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs