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
Don't silently ignore arbitrary method expectations when combining them with 'and_call_original' #382
Conversation
Awesome, thx! |
|
||
extend(Mocks::Warning) unless respond_to?(:warning) && respond_to?(:warn_with) | ||
end | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also, do you think this kind of warning should be printed in the deprecation stream or always to STDERR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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 :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@JonRowe which other PR? Has it been merged yet and can we move forward with this fix?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Really wishing I had noted the number...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
rspec/rspec-core#1024 perhaps?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah hah! Yes that makes sense :)
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 ( |
Changes Unknown when pulling d8bca94 on warn_when_overriding_implementation into * on master*. |
Changes Unknown when pulling 650bee8 on warn_when_overriding_implementation into * on master*. |
Changes Unknown when pulling 650bee8 on warn_when_overriding_implementation into * on master*. |
Ready for a review I guess. |
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ | |||
module RSpec | |||
|
|||
unless respond_to?(:deprecate) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Where else would this be defined? Comment required.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This whole file is for when the gems are used individually.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Otherwise it picks up the one from rspec-core
. I get it, think it's unusual enough to deserve a comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep I was already writing one ;)
Could final commit be squashed into another? |
Looks good otherwise when build is green. |
It's awaiting rspec/rspec-core#1024 (to sync the warning stuff) |
Changes Unknown when pulling 894dd8b on warn_when_overriding_implementation into * on master*. |
Actually I think we can merge this now and sync up the warnings stuff later if need be |
module RSpec | ||
|
||
# We don't redefine the deprecation helpers | ||
# when they already exist (defined by rspec-core etc) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
good
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. |
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'
This looks good, but did we address the other odd error ( |
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. |
Ah...I know what's going on: that expression passes the block to rspec-mocks/lib/rspec/mocks/matchers/receive.rb Lines 76 to 78 in f434af5
So, I think if we changed |
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.
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
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.