Forum: RSpec Parameterised shared examples / metadata in examples (RSpec 2)

2ce9c0106b5851b2294ba5eb9f5c04bd?d=identicon&s=25 Ashley Moran (Guest)
on 2010-07-23 09:36
(Received via mailing list)
Hi

Warning: this goes on quite a bit.  It contains early-morning
caffeinated ramblings and many "hmmm I wonder what this does..."
snippets.

I'm looking for the best way to parameterise shared examples.  Imagine
(as an academic example...) you were doing it for subclasses of Struct
instances (a more realistic example might be ActiveRecord subclasses, or
DataMapper resources), such as:

  class MyStruct < Struct.new(:a, :b)
  end

  class MyOtherStruct < Struct.new(:foo, :bar)
  end


I've seen it done with #let, eg:

  shared_examples_for "a Struct" do
    it "has methods" do
      properties.each do |property|
        struct.should respond_to(property)
      end
    end
  end

  describe MyStruct do
    let(:struct) { MyStruct.new }
    let(:properties) { [:a, :b] }
    it_should_behave_like "a Struct"
  end

  describe MyOtherStruct do
    let(:struct) { MyOtherStruct.new }
    let(:properties) { [:foo, :bar] }
    it_should_behave_like "a Struct"
  end

Which is not a bad solution, but does feel a bit too much like using
(scoped) global variables for my liking.  There's no explicit
association between the shared examples and their parameters (and the
arguments actually passed in each example group.


So I started to wonder if this could be done with metadata.  My first
naive stab was this:

  describe MyStruct do
    it_should_behave_like "a Struct", properties: [:a, :b]
  end

But this fails:

  Could not find shared example group named {:properties=>[:a, :b]}

Anyway, I dug in a bit and found that the metadata is only available to
the example group anyway, not the examples themselves.  So you can't do:

  describe MyStruct, properties: [:a, :b] do
    let(:struct) { MyStruct.new }
    it "has methods" do
      metadata[:properties].each do |property|
        struct.should respond_to(property)
      end
    end
  end

But (more digging), you can do this:

  describe MyStruct, properties: [:a, :b] do
    let(:struct) { MyStruct.new }
    it "has methods" do
      example.metadata[:properties].each do |property|
        struct.should respond_to(property)
      end
    end
  end

Which means I can get this close to my original dreamed-up syntax:

  shared_examples_for "a Struct with metadata" do
    it "has methods" do
      example.metadata[:properties].each do |property|
        struct.should respond_to(property)
      end
    end
  end

  describe MyStruct, properties: [:a, :b] do
    let(:struct) { MyStruct.new }
    it_should_behave_like "a Struct with metadata"
  end

I don't object so much to having "struct" floating around, as it's
fairly safe to say all the shared examples will depend on #struct being
available.  Although, arguably, #subject would be better:

  shared_examples_for "a subject Struct with metadata" do
    it "has methods" do
      example.metadata[:properties].each do |property|
        subject.should respond_to(property)
      end
    end
  end

  describe MyStruct, properties: [:a, :b] do
    subject { MyStruct.new }
    it_should_behave_like "a subject Struct with metadata"
  end

or even:

  shared_examples_for "a subject Struct with metadata" do
    metadata[:properties].each do |property|
      it { should respond_to(property) }
    end
  end

  describe MyStruct, properties: [:a, :b] do
    subject { MyStruct.new }
    it_should_behave_like "a subject Struct with metadata"
  end

I tried to be a bit clever to see if I could clean up the example
definitions in the shared spec, but I got this far before hitting
weirdness that was beyond my understanding of RSpec (and the reach of my
spade...).  But, this was a bit of a tangent anyway:

  shared_examples_for "a subject Struct with metadata" do
    metadata[:params].each { |key, value| define_method(key) { value } }

    p self.inspect # outputs nil (!!!)

    properties.each do |property|
      it { should respond_to(property) }
    end
  end

  describe MyStruct, params: {properties: [:a, :b]} do
    subject { MyStruct.new }
    it_should_behave_like "a subject Struct with metadata"
  end


Sooooo... after all this, I just wondered if anyone had any ideas what
the best way to achieve this is, and how it could be extended.

For example, would there be any merit in being able to write:

  it_should_behave_like "a Struct", properties: [:a, :b]

?

Also I figure that as the metadata system is new, it's potentially
unfinished and/or in flux.  What are the plans/intentions/opportunities
for expansion for it?

Cheers
Ash


--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran
Ef9ecd30591995af2cf62cde10b26e49?d=identicon&s=25 Wincent Colaiuta (Guest)
on 2010-07-23 10:39
(Received via mailing list)
El 23/07/2010, a las 09:09, Ashley Moran
escribió:
>
>    let(:properties) { [:a, :b] }
>    it_should_behave_like "a Struct"
>  end
>
>  describe MyOtherStruct do
>    let(:struct) { MyOtherStruct.new }
>    let(:properties) { [:foo, :bar] }
>    it_should_behave_like "a Struct"
>  end
>
> Which is not a bad solution, but does feel a bit too much like using (scoped) global 
variables for my liking.  There's no explicit association between the shared examples and 
their parameters (and the arguments actually passed in each example group.

Recently commited (RSpec 2.0.0.beta.18) was the ability to pass a block
to "it_should_behave_like", making the relation clearer; eg:

  describe MyStruct do
    it_should_behave_like 'a Struct' do
      let(:struct) { MyStruct.new }
    end
  end

I did ask about parametrizing that explicitly via metadata, but David
feels that the block based approach is better; see the full thread here:

  http://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/issues/71

Wincent
2ce9c0106b5851b2294ba5eb9f5c04bd?d=identicon&s=25 Ashley Moran (Guest)
on 2010-07-23 12:04
(Received via mailing list)
On Jul 23, 2010, at 8:57 am, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:

>  http://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/issues/71
And I only just tweeted about that ticket too!  I didn't review it all
though, I just saw the aliasing (which I currently do by hand).

That's in beta 18 then?  Pretty sure I just got that when I updated this
morning.  Will play around with it later...

Cheers
Ash


--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.