Don't silently ignore arbitrary method expectations when combining them with 'and_call_original' #382

JonRowe · 2013-07-28T10:30:55Z

I had a discussion with @myronmarston about a problem I ran into during the conversion of our RSpec suite to the new expect/allow syntax. The gist of it can be found here.

Funnily what I thought was a bug, never quite worked the way I thought it was and I refactored the spec after reading his suggestions. Myron asked me to also add an issue for it, though. So here we go :-)

The spec we talked about had used the following expectation.

CachedUser.should_receive(:where) do |args|
    expect(args[:id]).to have(3).items
    expect(contact_ids).to include(*args[:id])
end.and_call_original

The values passed to 'where' are sort of random so you can't really setup an argument matcher with 'with'. That's why we tried to verify them in the block. The whole code under test there was also part of an AREL call comparable to this one. That's where the 'and_call_original' came into the game

CachedUser.where(id: random_related_user_ids).all

The spec passed. Though, as Myron pointed out, 'and_call_original' completely replaces the block expectation, resulting in the inner expectations never to be executed.

That was a bit surprising to find out, but to be honest also a fault on my side, since I probably never saw the expectation fail in the first place :-/

To make that behavior more obvious I think it would be good to either raise an exception or to output a warning in that case.

coveralls · 2013-07-28T11:00:30Z

Coverage decreased (-0%) when pulling c05a378 on warn_when_overriding_implementation into 9202615 on master.

BjRo · 2013-07-28T11:18:42Z

Awesome, thx!

myronmarston · 2013-07-31T06:00:41Z

lib/rspec/mocks/warning.rb

+
+  extend(Mocks::Warning) unless respond_to?(:warning) && respond_to?(:warn_with)
+end
+


This file is really small and seems to have a lot in common with lib/rspec/mocks/deprecation.rb. Given that ruby (particularly 1.9) has had well-known perf problems with requires, I think it behooves us to not split things into so many small files. What do you think about combining these into one file?

Also, do you think this kind of warning should be printed in the deprecation stream or always to STDERR?

I've taken care of this in the other PR, and I will rebase off that when we've worked it into something we want to use :)

@JonRowe which other PR? Has it been merged yet and can we move forward with this fix?

Really wishing I had noted the number...

rspec/rspec-core#1024 perhaps?

Ah hah! Yes that makes sense :)

myronmarston · 2013-07-31T06:05:42Z

spec/rspec/mocks/and_call_original_spec.rb

@@ -22,24 +22,30 @@ def self.new_instance
    let(:instance) { klass.new }

    it 'passes the received message through to the original method' do
-      instance.should_receive(:meth_1).and_call_original
+      allow(instance).to receive(:meth_1).and_call_original


Why did you change this from a message expectation to a stub? IMO, and_call_original doesn't really make sense with a stub, given that the and_call_original is only possible on a partial mock, and it would call the original normally anyway....

myronmarston · 2013-07-31T06:05:58Z

spec/rspec/mocks/and_call_original_spec.rb

      expect(instance.meth_1).to eq(:original)
    end

    it 'passes args and blocks through to the original method' do
-      instance.should_receive(:meth_2).and_call_original
+      allow(instance).to receive(:meth_2).and_call_original


Same here: why the change from a mock expectation?

myronmarston · 2013-07-31T06:09:12Z

lib/rspec/mocks/message_expectation.rb

@@ -116,6 +116,9 @@ def and_call_original
        if @method_double.object.is_a?(RSpec::Mocks::TestDouble)
          @error_generator.raise_only_valid_on_a_partial_mock(:and_call_original)
        else
+          if implementation.inner_action


I think implementation.has_inner_action? would make more sense...thoughts?

myronmarston · 2013-07-31T06:10:44Z

lib/rspec/mocks/message_expectation.rb

@@ -464,6 +467,7 @@ def initial_implementation_action=(action)
      end

      def inner_implementation_action=(action)
+        RSpec.warning("You're overriding a previous implementation for this stub") if implementation.inner_action


I think RSpec.warn reads better (as its a verb) than RSpec.warning (as warning is a noun). Thoughts?

This matches up with the stuff in rspec/rspec-core#1024, happy to have that discussion there :)

myronmarston · 2013-07-31T06:12:45Z

lib/rspec/mocks/message_expectation.rb

@@ -116,6 +116,9 @@ def and_call_original
        if @method_double.object.is_a?(RSpec::Mocks::TestDouble)
          @error_generator.raise_only_valid_on_a_partial_mock(:and_call_original)
        else
+          if implementation.inner_action
+            RSpec.warning("You're overriding a previous implementation for this stub")


I think the "for this stub" language could be a bit confusing when it's a mock expectation and not a stub. Not sure if there's a more generic way to phrase it, though...

myronmarston · 2013-07-31T06:31:43Z

In @BjRo's gist, it also came up that an expression like this:

      expect(CachedUser).to receive(:where) do |args|
        expect(args[:id]).to have(3).items
        expect(contact_ids).to include(*args[:id])
      end.and_call_original

...raises a confusing error (NoMethodError: undefined method 'and_call_original' for []:Array). It would be good to fix that as well.

coveralls · 2013-10-02T10:13:49Z

Changes Unknown when pulling d8bca94 on warn_when_overriding_implementation into * on master*.

coveralls · 2013-10-02T10:29:08Z

Changes Unknown when pulling 650bee8 on warn_when_overriding_implementation into * on master*.

coveralls · 2013-10-02T10:35:38Z

Changes Unknown when pulling 650bee8 on warn_when_overriding_implementation into * on master*.

JonRowe · 2013-10-02T10:48:25Z

Ready for a review I guess.

xaviershay · 2013-10-05T00:36:20Z

lib/rspec/mocks/warnings.rb

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+module RSpec
+
+  unless respond_to?(:deprecate)


Where else would this be defined? Comment required.

This whole file is for when the gems are used individually.

Otherwise it picks up the one from rspec-core. I get it, think it's unusual enough to deserve a comment.

Yep I was already writing one ;)

xaviershay · 2013-10-05T00:39:45Z

Could final commit be squashed into another?

xaviershay · 2013-10-05T00:40:16Z

Looks good otherwise when build is green.

JonRowe · 2013-10-05T02:10:53Z

It's awaiting rspec/rspec-core#1024 (to sync the warning stuff)

coveralls · 2013-10-05T02:17:14Z

Changes Unknown when pulling 894dd8b on warn_when_overriding_implementation into * on master*.

JonRowe · 2013-10-05T02:18:00Z

Actually I think we can merge this now and sync up the warnings stuff later if need be

xaviershay · 2013-10-05T02:18:44Z

lib/rspec/mocks/warnings.rb

+module RSpec
+
+  # We don't redefine the deprecation helpers
+  # when they already exist (defined by rspec-core etc)


xaviershay · 2013-10-05T02:19:58Z

Yeah I don't see a reason to gate this on the core PR. Worst case scenario we just need to come back here and change it again if core PR changes, that's not terrible.

coveralls · 2013-10-05T02:36:27Z

Changes Unknown when pulling 659b039 on warn_when_overriding_implementation into * on master*.

Don't silently ignore arbitrary method expectations when combining them with 'and_call_original'

myronmarston · 2013-10-05T05:02:00Z

This looks good, but did we address the other odd error (NoMethodError: undefined method 'and_call_original' for []:Array) I mentioned above ?

JonRowe · 2013-10-05T08:13:02Z

Hmm, no, but thats a block capture issue... e.g.

expect(user).to receive(:where) do |args|
  expect(args[:id].size).to eq 3
end.and_call_original

produces the weird error

expect(user).to( receive(:where) do |args|
  expect(args[:id].size).to eq 3
end.and_call_original )

Works fine.

myronmarston · 2013-10-05T15:26:27Z

Ah...I know what's going on: that expression passes the block to to due to ruby's precedence rules. So and_call_original is being called from the return value of to. which is the return value of handle_matcher, which returns whatever matcher.matches? returns, which, in this case, is returning @recorded_customizations, which is an array:

rspec-mocks/lib/rspec/mocks/matchers/receive.rb

Lines 76 to 78 in f434af5

    
           @recorded_customizations.each do |customization| 
        
             customization.playback_onto(expectation) 
        
           end

So, I think if we changed RSpec::Mocks::Matchers::Recive#setup_method_substitute to return expectation, it would allow further chaining. Want to take a stab at writing a failing spec, adding that, and seeing if it passes?

myronmarston reviewed Jul 31, 2013
View changes

JonRowe added 2 commits Jul 28, 2013

deprecation and warning reworking

f8662ad

warn when overriding an implementation block

1712a90

xaviershay reviewed Oct 5, 2013
View changes

lib/rspec/mocks/warnings.rb

module RSpec

# We don't redefine the deprecation helpers

# when they already exist (defined by rspec-core etc)

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

xaviershay Oct 5, 2013
Member

good

unify warning files and match core

Loading status checks…

659b039

JonRowe added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 5, 2013

Merge pull request #382 from rspec/warn_when_overriding_implementation

Loading status checks…

f434af5

Don't silently ignore arbitrary method expectations when combining them with 'and_call_original'

JonRowe merged commit f434af5 into master Oct 5, 2013
1 check passed

1 check passed

default The Travis CI build passed
Details

JonRowe deleted the warn_when_overriding_implementation branch Oct 5, 2013

JonRowe mentioned this pull request Oct 6, 2013

Allow chaining receive modifications off do..end blocks #428

Merged

lamont-granquist mentioned this pull request Jan 30, 2014

Ruby 1.8.7 receive-with-block failure on 2.14.x and 2.99.0.beta1 (but not 2.13.x and 3.0.0.beta1) #549

Closed

lda mentioned this pull request Nov 12, 2014

Expectations block not evaluated when using and_call_original #814

Closed

rspec / rspec-mocks

Don't silently ignore arbitrary method expectations when combining them with 'and_call_original' #382

Don't silently ignore arbitrary method expectations when combining them with 'and_call_original' #382

JonRowe commented Jul 28, 2013

coveralls commented Jul 28, 2013

BjRo commented Jul 28, 2013

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

myronmarston commented Jul 31, 2013

coveralls commented Oct 2, 2013

coveralls commented Oct 2, 2013

coveralls commented Oct 2, 2013

JonRowe commented Oct 2, 2013

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

xaviershay commented Oct 5, 2013

xaviershay commented Oct 5, 2013

JonRowe commented Oct 5, 2013

coveralls commented Oct 5, 2013

JonRowe commented Oct 5, 2013

This comment has been minimized.

xaviershay commented Oct 5, 2013

coveralls commented Oct 5, 2013

myronmarston commented Oct 5, 2013

JonRowe commented Oct 5, 2013

myronmarston commented Oct 5, 2013


		extend(Mocks::Warning) unless respond_to?(:warning) && respond_to?(:warn_with)
		end

rspec / rspec-mocks

Sponsor rspec/rspec-mocks

Don't silently ignore arbitrary method expectations when combining them with 'and_call_original' #382

Don't silently ignore arbitrary method expectations when combining them with 'and_call_original' #382

Conversation

JonRowe commented Jul 28, 2013

coveralls commented Jul 28, 2013

BjRo commented Jul 28, 2013

This comment has been minimized.

myronmarston Jul 31, 2013 Member

This comment has been minimized.

myronmarston Jul 31, 2013 Member

This comment has been minimized.

JonRowe Jul 31, 2013 Author Member

This comment has been minimized.

xaviershay Oct 1, 2013 Member

This comment has been minimized.

JonRowe Oct 1, 2013 Author Member

This comment has been minimized.

myronmarston Oct 2, 2013 Member

This comment has been minimized.

JonRowe Oct 2, 2013 Author Member

This comment has been minimized.

myronmarston Jul 31, 2013 Member

This comment has been minimized.

myronmarston Jul 31, 2013 Member

This comment has been minimized.

myronmarston Jul 31, 2013 Member

This comment has been minimized.

myronmarston Jul 31, 2013 Member

This comment has been minimized.

JonRowe Oct 2, 2013 Author Member

This comment has been minimized.

myronmarston Jul 31, 2013 Member

myronmarston commented Jul 31, 2013

coveralls commented Oct 2, 2013

coveralls commented Oct 2, 2013

coveralls commented Oct 2, 2013

JonRowe commented Oct 2, 2013

This comment has been minimized.

xaviershay Oct 5, 2013 Member

This comment has been minimized.

JonRowe Oct 5, 2013 Author Member

This comment has been minimized.

xaviershay Oct 5, 2013 Member

This comment has been minimized.

JonRowe Oct 5, 2013 Author Member

xaviershay commented Oct 5, 2013

xaviershay commented Oct 5, 2013

JonRowe commented Oct 5, 2013

coveralls commented Oct 5, 2013

JonRowe commented Oct 5, 2013

This comment has been minimized.

xaviershay Oct 5, 2013 Member

xaviershay commented Oct 5, 2013

coveralls commented Oct 5, 2013

myronmarston commented Oct 5, 2013

JonRowe commented Oct 5, 2013

myronmarston commented Oct 5, 2013

myronmarston Jul 31, 2013
Member

myronmarston Jul 31, 2013
Member

JonRowe Jul 31, 2013
Author Member

xaviershay Oct 1, 2013
Member

JonRowe Oct 1, 2013
Author Member

myronmarston Oct 2, 2013
Member

JonRowe Oct 2, 2013
Author Member

myronmarston Jul 31, 2013
Member

myronmarston Jul 31, 2013
Member

myronmarston Jul 31, 2013
Member

myronmarston Jul 31, 2013
Member

JonRowe Oct 2, 2013
Author Member

myronmarston Jul 31, 2013
Member

xaviershay Oct 5, 2013
Member

JonRowe Oct 5, 2013
Author Member

xaviershay Oct 5, 2013
Member

JonRowe Oct 5, 2013
Author Member

xaviershay Oct 5, 2013
Member