Testing that named_scope is defined

Hi guys,

I’m just beginning to use RSpec and I ran into the issue of testing a
named_scope. I’m not actually trying to test its behavior, as it’s not
my code, but I wanted to test at least that it’s defined. I tried
doing this:

describe Post, “.most_recent” do
it “should be defined” do
Post.method_defined?(:most_recent).should be_true
end
end

But it always fails, even though it is defined. Any idea on how to
test this?

Thanks a lot!

Cheers,


Helder R.

ProFUSION
Embedded Systems
http://profusion.mobi

“If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders” – Jeff Goll

On May 13, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Helder R. wrote:

I’m not actually trying to test its behavior,

quick! Duck! INCOMING…!!!

On 5/13/08, Jonathan L. [email protected] wrote:

http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

I wonder why OP doesn’t create two records, call #most_recent, and
verify that the record returned is the one with the larger timestamp.

If the code is “not yours” (and I think you ought to clarify what you
mean by that), then you should be testing it at a higher level instead
of directly.

Pat

On 5/13/08, Pat M. [email protected] wrote:

[email protected]
Pat

The other answer to your question is that #method_defined looks at the
instance methods. To do what you want, you should do

Foo.singleton_methods.should include(“most_recent”)

Pat

Oi Helder,

On May 13, 2008, at 9:14 PM, Helder R. wrote:

If the code is “not yours” (and I think you ought to clarify what you
it’s supposed to, only that it is declared (because that one line is
all I wrote myself).

You’re thinking of this backwards. You are trying to test that you’re
using a specific method rather than expecting a behaviour. Specs are
about behaviour. You’re trying to backfill them against implementation.

The behaviour you expect is to find the most recent posts, so that’s
what the example should expect. The fact that you’re implementing that
(which should happen after you write the example, not before) with
named_scope instead of defining a method is an implementation detail.
If you decide later that, for whatever reason, you want to change the
implementation to a defined method, this example will still pass - or
fail if you do the wrong thing. That’s the whole point for executable
examples. They encourage you to write the code you need and only the
code you need, and then later they let you know whether changes you
make to implementation preserve the behaviour that you are expecting.

That all make sense?

Tchau,
David

ps - eu acho que você é brasileiro ou português por causa do seu nome

né?

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Pat M. remov[email protected] wrote:

I wonder why OP doesn’t create two records, call #most_recent, and
verify that the record returned is the one with the larger timestamp.

I’m sorry about the confusion here. Your idea sounds indeed better
(I’ll explain below).

If the code is “not yours” (and I think you ought to clarify what you
mean by that), then you should be testing it at a higher level instead
of directly.

As I said, I’m not very familiar with specs and stuff, and I’ve read
repeatedly on this list and other places that one should only test
one’s own code. That is, if you declare a has_many association, you
shouldn’t test that the methods actually return the proper model
objects, etc., because that would be testing ActiveRecord. In that
same spirit, I thought I shouldn’t test that a named_scope does what
it’s supposed to, only that it is declared (because that one line is
all I wrote myself).

But I guess I got a bit carried away, as in that declaration there is
stuff besides the declaration itself, namely, the bit specifying the
order. So it would be better to test for that, rather than just
testing if it was declared or not.

Thanks a lot for your help :slight_smile:

Pat


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


Helder R.

ProFUSION
Embedded Systems
http://profusion.mobi

“If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders” – Jeff Goll

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:50 PM, David C. [email protected]
wrote:

Oi Helder,

Opa, beleza? :slight_smile:

(I’ll explain below).
objects, etc., because that would be testing ActiveRecord. In that
should happen after you write the example, not before) with named_scope
instead of defining a method is an implementation detail. If you decide
later that, for whatever reason, you want to change the implementation to a
defined method, this example will still pass - or fail if you do the wrong
thing. That’s the whole point for executable examples. They encourage you to
write the code you need and only the code you need, and then later they let
you know whether changes you make to implementation preserve the behaviour
that you are expecting.

That all make sense?

Ok, that made a lot of sense, and for my particular case seems to be
the sensible approach. But where do you draw the line? Take the
ActiveRecord example. By the same logic you could argue that whatever
code you have that uses ActiveRecord should be spec’ed according to
its (your code’s) expected behavior, regardless of it using
ActiveRecord or not under the hood. But then couldn’t you end up
describing a lot of ActiveRecord’s behavior along the way, which would
be kinda wasteful, since ActiveRecord is itself pretty well-tested
already?

http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


Helder R.

ProFUSION
Embedded Systems
http://profusion.mobi

“If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders” – Jeff Goll

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