I'm pleased to introduce a new Test Double (or mock) framework named RR, which is short for Double Ruby.

Why a Double framework and not a Mock framework?

A mock is a type of test double. Since RR supports mocks, stubs, and proxies, it makes sense to refer to RR as a double framework. The proxy is a new usage pattern that I will introduce later in this article, and in more detail in future articles.

Unfortunately, the terminology over doubles has been contradictory depending on the framework. RR's terminology tries to be as faithful as possible to Gerald Meszaros' definition of test doubles. You can read more about test doubles in http://xunitpatterns.com/Test2e.html and Martin Fowler's article, http://martinfowler.com/articles/mocksArentStubs.html. Regretfully, this does mean that RR will have slightly different terminology than other double frameworks.

How does RR compare to other Mock frameworks?

Most double frameworks focus mainly on mocks (hence the categorization "mock framework"). RR's focus is on enabling more double test patterns in a terse and readable syntax.

RR also does not have dedicated mock objects. It primarily uses the technique called 'double injection'. Names that other frameworks use are 'stub injection', 'mock object injection', 'partial mocking', or 'stubbing'. The term I'll use for this is a double injection, since one or many doubles are being injected into an object's method.

I'll use trivial Rails examples to highlight the syntactical differences between RR, Mocha, Rspec's mocks, and Flexmock. They may or may not be appropriate situations for mocks. The right situations for mocks is an entirely different discussion.

If there is better way to do any of the examples, please post a comment and I will gladly replace it.

Mocks

Here are the ways to mock the User.find method. The expectation is the User class object will receive a call to #find with the argument '99' once and will return the object represented by the variable user.

RR

mock(User).find('99') { user }

Mocha

User.expects(:find).with('99').returns(user)

spec/mocks

User.should_receive(:find).with('99').and_return(user)

Flexmock

flexstub(User).should_receive(:find).with('99').and_return(user).once

Stubs

Here are the ways to stub the User.find method. When the User class object receives a call to find with the argument '99' it will return user1. When User receives find with any other arg, it returns user2.

RR

stub(User).find('99') { user1 }
stub(User).find { user2 }

Mocha

User.stubs(:find).with(anything).returns(2)
User.stubs(:find).with('99').returns(1)

spec/mocks

users = {
  '99' => user1,
  'default' => user2
}
User.stub!(:find).and_return do |id|
  users[id] || users['default']
end

Flexmock

users = {
  '99' => user1,
  'default' => user2
}
flexstub(User).should_receive(:find).and_return do |id|
  users[id] || users['default']
end

Proxy

A proxy used with a mock or stub causes the real method to be called. Expectations can be placed on the invocation and the return value can be intercepted. The main rationales are test clarity and you can ensure that the methods are being called correctly, even after you refactor your code. I will delve more into proxies and their usage patterns in my next article.

Mock Proxy

The following examples set an expectation that User.find('99') will be called once. The actual user is returned.

RR

mock.proxy(User).find('99')

Mocha

You cannot implement this in Mocha. You can do an approximation in this situation however. This technique is not always the solution you need, though.

user = User.find('99')
User.expects(:find).with('99').returns(user)

spec/mocks

find_method = User.method(:find)
User.should_receive(:find).with('99').and_return(&find_method)

Flexmock

find_method = User.method(:find)
User.should_receive(:find).with('99').and_return(&find_method)

Stub Proxy

The following examples intercept the return value of User.find('99') and stub out valid? to return false.

RR

stub.proxy(User).find('99') do |user|
  stub(user).valid? {false}
  user
end

Mocha

Again, this is an approximation, since you cannot use proxies in Mocha.

user = User.find('99')
user.stubs(:valid?).returns(false)
User.stubs(:find).with('99').returns(user)

spec/mocks

find_method = User.method(:find)
User.stub!(:find).with('99').and_return do |id|
  user = find_method.call(id)
  user.stub!(:valid?).and_return(false)
  user
end

Flexmock

find_method = User.method(:find)
flexstub(User).should_receive(:find).with('99').and_return do |id|
  user = find_method.call(id)
  flexstub(user).should_receive(:valid?).and_return(false)
  user
end

instance_of

instance_of is method sugar than allows you to mock or stub instances of a particular class. The following examples mock instances of User to expect valid? with no arguments to be called once and return false.

RR

mock.instance_of(User).valid? {false}

Mocha

User.any_instance.expects(:valid?).returns(false)

spec/mocks

new_method = User.method(:new)
User.stub!(:new).and_return do |*args|
  user = new_method.call(*args)
  user.should_receive(:valid?).and_return(false)
  user
end

Flexmock

new_method = User.method(:new)
flexstub(User).should_receive(:new).and_return do |*args|
  user = new_method.call(*args)
  flexmock(user).should_receive(:valid?).and_return(false)
  user
end

More to come

This concludes the introduction to RR. RR enables some techniques, like proxying, that will make your tests clearer and less brittle. In the next article I will describe into patterns and techniques that will make mocks a more feasible tool for more situations.

The Confreaks site has released a slew of videos from the 2007 RubyConf. The videos are in the perfect format: side by side streams with the projection material on one side and the stream of the speaker on the other.

Many great sessions are covered, including a good one on the Treetop parser presented by Pivotal Labs' own Nathan Sobo. As a bonus, in the audience you can spot other Pivots you may be familiar from this weblog (Nick Kallen and Brian Takita).

I have a few gems on Rubyforge and I want to track how many of them were downloaded. I found Firefox's search tools lacking to find my gem rr.

To fix this issue, I made a sake task, named gems:downloads:list, that prints the gem downloads in text.

The source is on caboo.se.

You can install it by using:

sudo gem install sake
sake -i http://pastie.caboo.se/79547.txt gems:downloads:list
sake gems:downloads:list | less

This will give an output like:

------------------------------------------------
|                              Gem | Downloads |
------------------------------------------------
|                            rails |   1194471 |
|                     activerecord |   1121778 |
|                       actionpack |   1054718 |
|                    activesupport |    990851 |
|                     actionmailer |    960759 |
|                 actionwebservice |    948640 |
|                             rake |    860824 |
|                            mysql |    593476 |
|                             fcgi |    230394 |
|                          mongrel |    220370 |
|                          daemons |    167443 |
|                          rmagick |    164537 |
|                       gem_plugin |    153505 |
|                         RedCloth |    147182 |
|                  rubygems-update |    119615 |
|                          net-ssh |    114369 |
|                     sqlite3-ruby |    105796 |
|                       fastthread |     95534 |
|            cgi_multipart_eof_fix |     95399 |
|                           needle |     87718 |

Sake is way cool. It was just too easy to implement and deploy this. Have fun making your own sake tasks.

The setup:

I'm told file uploading is a pain to test. We needed to. So we cruised through the tubes over to ruby-doc.org to check out the Net::HTTP rdoc -- only to find that Net:HTTP::Post does not support multipart uploading and files. What to do, what to DO?!?

The research:

Some googling later, we find this article showing how to do it. A little copy-paste, a small spike later, and we have an external script capable of uploading files into our web-apps. But, lets brain-storm a little...

• How can we make it better?
• What would be a nice interface?

Well, the first step is to change the script such that it can be more easily integrated into rake test:functionals: make it less script-y; more library. The interface is somewhat inspired by the basic_auth method. All you have to say is Net::HTTP::Post.new().multipart_params = {}? You give it a hash, and it takes care of the rest. Huzzah! So lets open up Net::HTTP::POST and give it some new methods. Time for some CODE!!!

The Code

require 'net/https'
require "rubygems"
require "mime/types"
require "base64"
require 'cgi'

class Net::HTTP::Post
  def multipart_params=(param_hash={})
    boundary_token = [Array.new(8) {rand(256)}].join
    self.content_type = "multipart/form-data; boundary=#{boundary_token}"
    boundary_marker = "--#{boundary_token}\r\n"
    self.body = param_hash.map { |param_name, param_value|
      boundary_marker + case param_value
      when String
        text_to_multipart(param_name, param_value)
      when File
        file_to_multipart(param_name, param_value)
      end
    }.join('') + "--#{boundary_token}--\r\n"
  end

  protected
  def file_to_multipart(key,file)
    filename = File.basename(file.path)
    mime_types = MIME::Types.of(filename)
    mime_type = mime_types.empty? ? "application/octet-stream" : mime_types.first.content_type
    part = Q|Content-Disposition: form-data; name="#{key}"; filename="#{filename}"\r\n|
    part += "Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary\r\n"
    part += "Content-Type: #{mime_type}\r\n\r\n#{file.read}"
  end

  def text_to_multipart(key,value)
    "Content-Disposition: form-data; name=\"#{key}\"\r\n\r\n#{value}\r\n"
  end
end

Oh the utility:

Now that's more like it. Hackish, since you have to stick headers into the request body, but effective. Notice the bit in there about MIME::Types. Did you see that? Yeah, we went there. Say it with me... Automatic mime type detection with a safe default. The absurd thing in there is that the MIME::Types gem (as of today) does not know about .rb files.

irb(main):007:0> MIME::Types.of('something.rb')                   
=> []

So now that you have that, it's just a simple use of Net::HTTP with a blizzock to upload a file in a functional test.

File.open(File.expand_path('script/test.png'), 'r') do |file|
  http = Net::HTTP.new('localhost', 3000)
  begin
    http.start do |http|
      request = Net::HTTP::Post.new('/your/url/here')
      request.basic_auth 'lonely_user', 'really_long_password'
      request.multipart_params = {'file' => file, 'title' => 'title'}
      response = http.request(request)
      response.value
      puts response.body
    end
  rescue Net::HTTPServerException => e
    p e
  end
end

The questions:

So what do you think? How can this be made even better?

We all like a good oxymoron, like redefining constants. There are times where we need to redefine a constant to test an edge case in the application code. Before I go into this example, please note that redefining constants is generally not a good way to have maintainable software. If you find yourself needing to redefine a constant, it may be an indication that refactoring is needed.

Given that, lets get into an example where you may need to redefine a constant. Lets say an app has does file uploads to Amazon's S3 service. A common practice to upload to a real S3 account made for the production, development, or demo environment.

When in the test environment, a fake S3 service would be used instead. The fake service is useful to keep your tests fast and running predictably.

To get a different File Upload service object in each of your environments, one can have the S3 configuration in the environment files:

test.rb

STORAGE_SERVICE = FakeStorageService.new

development.rb

STORAGE_SERVICE = S3StorageService.new("development_service", "access_key", "secret_access_key")

production.rb

STORAGE_SERVICE = S3StorageService.new("production_service", "access_key", "secret_access_key")

The File Upload service objects can be set to constants in the environment file. This works great when testing the logic of the objects that use the File Upload service. However it is a good idea to run an integration test that does a real upload.

Since the tests are running in the test environment, a fake File Upload service is being used. Well now we want to use a real service that points to a test S3 account. An easy trick is to redefine the constant to the S3 service in setup and then redefine the constant back to the fake service on teardown.

There are a few ways of doing this...

Just Reset the Constant

context "A real S3 call" do
  setup do
    STORAGE_SERVICE = S3StorageService.new("test_service", "access_key", "secret_access_key")
  end
  teardown do
    STORAGE_SERVICE = FakeStorageService.new
  end
end

This is the simplest approach, but it produces an error:

warning: already initialized constant STORAGE_SERVICE

###Use silence_warnings

context "A real S3 call" do
  setup do
    silence_warnings do
      STORAGE_SERVICE = S3StorageService.new("test_service", "access_key", "secret_access_key")
    end
  end
  teardown do
    silence_warnings do
      STORAGE_SERVICE = FakeStorageService.new
    end
  end
end

This solution removes the warning, but now a certain section of your code will not have warning at all. Also, one could argue that you lose semantic meaning. It also feels like a hack.

Redefine the Constant

class Module
  def redefine_const(name, value)
    __send__(:remove_const, name) if const_defined?(name)
    const_set(name, value)
  end
end

context "A real S3 call" do
  setup do
    Object.redefine_const(
      :STORAGE_SERVICE,
      S3StorageService.new("test_service", "access_key", "secret_access_key")
    )
  end
  teardown do
    Object.redefine_const(
      :STORAGE_SERVICE,
      STORAGE_SERVICE = FakeStorageService.new
    )
  end
end

Calling redefining the constant does not generate a warning. Also it does provide semantic value because you are actively declaring that you are redefining the constant. If there are other warnings, you will also see them.

Its all Dirty

Redefining constants is a non-standard tatic, especially for those new to Ruby. Since this is unconventional and is often contrary to assumptions, it may lead to unpredictable behavior.

Maybe the storage service can be an attribute that can be changed for individual tests.

I was just sitting around my living room listening to NPR, and heard the following Car Talk puzzler:

I want you to get a pencil and write down the numbers, 1 - 9, inclusive, and leave enough space between them. At your disposal you have one plus sign and two minus signs. You can insert those plus and minus signs wherever you want, to make the total come out to 100.

Naturally, I thought, "Gee, that would be tedious to solve it by hand. But it would be fun to write a Ruby program to solve it!" 9 minutes later I was sending the result (and the source code) to Car Talk Plaza.

So here's your challenge: can you write a program to solve this puzzle? And can you beat my time?

My solution is below the fold... don't click "more" until you've taken a stab at it yourself.

As the righteous wave of Intel iMacs surges into the Pivotal Labs offices, more Pivots are finding themselves working with multiple OS X Terminal windows. The opening and positioning of terminal windows often follows the same pattern: cd into project directory, run mongrel, open next window, cd into project directory, tail the test log, etc.. To avoid violating DRY, I've hacked up some simple ruby scripts that automate the process. See my original post for details and links to the scripts.

Now it's just a matter of running one command: $ terminals.rb myproject This opens up all of the standard windows from the project in their specified positions and running the right processes.