Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use contexts #3

Open
andreareginato opened this issue Oct 3, 2012 · 30 comments
Open

Use contexts #3

andreareginato opened this issue Oct 3, 2012 · 30 comments
Labels

Comments

@andreareginato
Copy link
Collaborator

@andreareginato andreareginato commented Oct 3, 2012

Write your thoughts about the "use contexts" best practice.

@andyw8
Copy link

@andyw8 andyw8 commented Oct 4, 2012

Deeply nested contexts can be confusing. I wouldn't use any more than 2 levels.

@andrewhavens
Copy link

@andrewhavens andrewhavens commented Oct 5, 2012

I agree with this best practice, but I feel there should also be example code of how to set up the context. The context method doesn't do anything by itself, just makes it more readable.

@flov
Copy link

@flov flov commented Oct 9, 2012

I agree with @andyw8 and disagree with the rule.
If there would be only one it block inside the context block, it reads much easier with using one it instead of using context and it.
It also requires you to setup the conditions in a before block which is another two lines just for before do and end

@adarsh
Copy link

@adarsh adarsh commented Oct 19, 2012

I disagree with using "should" in describe blocks.

Do or do not - there is no "should".

@adarsh
Copy link

@adarsh adarsh commented Oct 19, 2012

Edit: Wait - you already have this guideline here.

Why is it not used in this example (or others consistently)?

tony612 added a commit to tony612/betterspecs that referenced this issue Mar 19, 2013
@kikito
Copy link

@kikito kikito commented May 1, 2013

This particular example confuses me.

it 'has 200 status code if logged in' do
  response.should respond_with 200
end

=>

context 'when logged in' do
  it { should respond_with 200 }
end

My concern is that response has magically dissapeared. Where is it?

@LandonSchropp
Copy link

@LandonSchropp LandonSchropp commented Jul 7, 2013

What's the best way to go about setting up the context? Should I just be using before? In the example, the context is magically set up.

@alexandru-calinoiu
Copy link

@alexandru-calinoiu alexandru-calinoiu commented Aug 1, 2013

It should be mentioned somewhere that you need shoulda included as gem for this matchers to actually work

@warmwaffles
Copy link

@warmwaffles warmwaffles commented Aug 1, 2013

@kikito response is the subject. Since this would be in a controller test, it gets assigned as the subject.

@russellsilva
Copy link

@russellsilva russellsilva commented Aug 26, 2013

I agree that the comment by @Balauru should be incorporated. Also the clarification by @warmwaffles would be nice too. These things may be obvious for experience Rails hackers but they aren't clear for a newbie.

@warmwaffles
Copy link

@warmwaffles warmwaffles commented Aug 26, 2013

@russellsilva essentially in the background this happens with controller tests:

subject { response }

If you wish to be more explicit, then by all means, use response

@tubbo
Copy link

@tubbo tubbo commented Sep 30, 2013

I really fail to see how one is any better than the other. You're adding extra syntax and work for the program just to save yourself a few characters? Also forgot to mention that shoulda isn't part of RSpec and therefore it {should.. doesn't work in straight RSpec. So now I have to load a whole 'nother gem just to save a few extra characters?

Most of these tips for writing more clear specs are appreciated, and make a lot of sense. But this one in particular struck me as a little snake oily.

@siwka
Copy link

@siwka siwka commented Oct 23, 2013

I am new to rspec. First I type a good solution and in result I have obvious for experienced users 'undefined method context'. Where is application of 'devoted to how to create a great RSpec test suite'? I wish to find reliable resource.

@warmwaffles
Copy link

@warmwaffles warmwaffles commented Jan 9, 2014

How are nested contexts supposed to be done?

context 'when something is set' do
  context 'and when another thing is set' do
  end
end

is it proper to use and in the description?

@tubbo
Copy link

@tubbo tubbo commented Jan 9, 2014

I usually don't write "and" in my context descriptions, but if I could alias context "when #{message}" to when, I would :)- T

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Matthew Johnston notifications@github.com
wrote:

How are nested contexts supposed to be done?

context 'when something is set' do
  context 'and when another thing is set' do
  end
end

is it proper to use and in the description?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#3 (comment)

@warmwaffles
Copy link

@warmwaffles warmwaffles commented Jan 9, 2014

You can't use when with a lower case, however you can alias context to be When, however I don't think this is a good idea.

@LandonSchropp
Copy link

@LandonSchropp LandonSchropp commented Jan 9, 2014

Yeah, I realized when was a reserved word almost immediately after I typed that. My bad.

@mhluongo
Copy link

@mhluongo mhluongo commented Jan 10, 2014

The switch from inline matching to custom matchers from the shoulda gem in the before/after examples are extremely misleading for those of us new to RSpec.

@warmwaffles
Copy link

@warmwaffles warmwaffles commented Jan 10, 2014

Personally, I stay away from shoulda matchers. They are confusing and need to be avoided.

@TigerWolf
Copy link

@TigerWolf TigerWolf commented Mar 24, 2014

This is inconsistent with http://betterspecs.org/#expect

It should be updated to follow the other guideline.

@ZenCocoon
Copy link

@ZenCocoon ZenCocoon commented Apr 10, 2014

As a one liner syntax, I would rather recommend is_expected.to instead of should. While a little more verbose, it would keep the logic more consistent.
Cf. https://www.relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-core/v/3-0/docs/subject/one-liner-syntax

@pedz
Copy link

@pedz pedz commented Oct 5, 2014

For this particular topic (and perhaps others), I would like to see what rspec prints out. That would make me better able to evaluate the idea myself. Often I write specs and then rewrite them because the output when the test is run is useless.

@xirukitepe
Copy link

@xirukitepe xirukitepe commented Jun 6, 2015

Is it really okay to have nested context blocks?

@onebree
Copy link
Contributor

@onebree onebree commented Jun 6, 2015

@xirukitepe I think it depends on your workflow and preference. At work, we use Capybara integration tests. Capybara DSL uses feature in place of context. Both work, but it just adds readibility to the spec. For us, a feature is a page (pretty much the controller used) in the app. I then create sub-contexts, like: context "SAD PATHS", because we do not use the it {should not} style. This way we can read the output and know if a test is for happy or sad paths

Do know, if you run random specs, they will be randomized as follows:

  1. By spec file
  2. By context (or feature or whatever DSL you use)
  3. By examples within the context

This means, if you have 2 contexts (one saying "Users page", and another saying "sad paths"), what will be randomized is:

  1. Spec file
  2. top level context
  3. second level context
  4. (and so on)
  5. examples
@nagi
Copy link

@nagi nagi commented Dec 7, 2015

How about amending:

When describing a context, start its description with "when" or "with"

... to ...

When describing a context, start its description with "when", "with", or "without"

Not so hot (in my opinion)

context 'with sprinkles' ...
context 'when there are no sprinkles on top' ...

Better (again, in my opinion)

context 'with sprinkles' ...
context 'without sprinkles' ...


🍦 🍨 🍧

@onebree
Copy link
Contributor

@onebree onebree commented Dec 7, 2015

@nagi I like your idea. How about submitting a pull request with the change?

@nagi
Copy link

@nagi nagi commented Dec 7, 2015

@onebree Great, thanks! #157

@mvz
Copy link

@mvz mvz commented Nov 23, 2017

I'm confused what this particular guideline is about: The good/bad example both adds the context and uses an anonymous it block.

@pedroadame
Copy link

@pedroadame pedroadame commented Jan 25, 2018

+1 @warmwaffles about writing nested context with context 'and when...'.

@schmijos
Copy link

@schmijos schmijos commented Nov 11, 2020

How are nested contexts supposed to be done?

context 'when something is set' do
  context 'and when another thing is set' do
  end
end

is it proper to use and in the description?

I miss "but" even more. Consider this example:

context "when we're looking at a banana" do
  subject { Banana.new }

  context "when it is green" do
    subject { Banana.new(color: 'green') }

    it { is_expected.to be_good_for_storage }
  end

  context "when it is yellow" do
    subject { Banana.new(color: 'yellow') }

    it { is_expected.to be_good_to_eat }

    context 'but it has black dots' do
      subject { Banana.new(color: 'yellow', dots: true) }

      it { is_expected.to be_good_for_milk_shake }
    end
  end
end

Even if betterspecs doesn't suggest to use a lot of nested contexts: people are doing it. So let's assume that there are many nested contexts in reality:

Contexts are really helpful for branching, but they could be much more helpful if we could mark edge cases explicitly. I'd propose to suggest "but" in nested contexts for edge cases.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet