Kyle, That is a good point. We are after the behaviour, not the implementation.
Regards Mikel On 7/25/07, Daniel N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 7/25/07, Kyle Hargraves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Daniel N wrote: > > > On 7/25/07, Mikel Lindsaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >> There would be a different way. > > >> > > >> In the idea of "Only test the code you write" all you really need to > > >> spec is that you have set the right association, because activerecord > > >> has it's own tests to ensure the uniq call works. > > >> > > >> You can do this with a call to > reflect_on_association. Unfortunately > > >> that call does not return a hash, but an association object. > > >> > > >> I wrote a blog post on how to do this easily with a spec_helper.rb > > >> method that adds to_hash to reflect on association. > > >> > > >> > > >> > http://www.blognow.com.au/q/67540/Reflect_on_association_one_liner_to_check_association_details.html > > >> > > >> > > >> In the end you end up with a spec that looks like this: > > >> > > >> it "should test reflection details" do > > >> > > >> association_results = { > > >> :macro => :has_many, > > >> :options => {:through => :clipping, :uniq => true}, > > >> :class_name => "nil" > > >> } > > >> > > >> Book.reflect_on_association (:clip).to_hash.should == > > >> association_results > > >> > > >> end > > >> > > >> > > >> Of course, you can add whatever values you want into the hash. > > >> > > >> I now have one of these specs at the top of pretty much every model > > >> spec. Just set up the hash with all your association rules and then > > >> this can be checked and kept track of when you are refactoring or > > >> changing code. > > >> > > >> Hope that helps. > > >> > > >> Regards > > >> > > >> Mikel > > > > > > > > > Thanx Mikel. > > > > > > I didn't even think of using a uniq on the has_many. I was using a > > > validates_uniquness_of :scope => 'book_id' > > > > > > I will definitley look into this one. > > > > > > Thankyou > > > Daniel > > > > However you decide to go about solving it, the idiom you hit upon is > > what, to me, actually describes the behaviour; if the book already has a > > clip once, you can't add it again: > > > > lambda { add_twice }.should change(...).by(1) > > > > It states very clearly what results you wish to see. > > > > Going through reflect_on_association feels too much like specifying the > > use of a particular implementation, rather than the desired outcome. > > > > Kyle > > > It looks much better when you write it like that though ;) > > > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
