BDD-style JavaScript testing:

“Borrowing from Behaviour Driven Development techniques, especially the RSpec framework I’ve added some new features to script.aculo.us™ testing library.”

(Via mir.aculo.us.)

Check it out!

Once I had the user roles code in place, working, and cleaned up, I decided to extend it by allowing regular expressions in the rights instead of literal strings (for controller & action names). Whether I stick with this going forward, who knows… but it’s convenient for development. Instead of separate rights for each action on a controller I can specify .* as the action to have the right apply to all actions for a controller.

Recall that I ended up with the core of the rights checking code actually in the Right class:

class Right < ActiveRecord::Base
  has_and_belongs_to_many :roles

  def has_right_for?(action_name, controller_name)
    action == action_name && controller == controller_name
  end
end

 

My first step was to wrap Rights attributes in a Regexp and do a match with the requested controller/action names:

class Right < ActiveRecord::Base
  has_and_belongs_to_many :roles

  def has_right_for?(action_name, controller_name)
    get_action_regex.match(action_name) && get_controller_regex.match(controller_name)
  end

  def get_action_regex
    Regexp.new(action)
  end

  def get_controller_regex
    Regexp.new(controller)
  end
end

 

It might be a case of premature optimization, but the Regexps can easily be cached since they are nicely encapsulated:

class Right < ActiveRecord::Base
  has_and_belongs_to_many :roles

  def has_right_for?(action_name, controller_name)
    get_action_regex.match(action_name) && get_controller_regex.match(controller_name)
  end

  def get_action_regex
    @action_regex || (@action_regex = Regexp.new(action))
  end

  def get_controller_regex
    @controller_regex || (@controller_regex = Regexp.new(controller))
  end

end

 

Part of the reason I blogged this was as an example of how much easier and obvious an enhancement can be when the code is cleanly (and extremely) refactored. More importantly, the details of rights can be changed without anything outside of the Right class being aware of it. If this ability is not one of the core benefits of OO, what is?

First of all.. this is a great book! I’ve already used a variety of Chad’s recipes, either as is or (more often) as the basis of something customized.

That said, I was a bit disappointed when I read through Recipe 32 “Authorizing Users With Roles”. Mind you the solution was fine and worked nicely. My issue was with the code itself. Specifically, the unless condition in:

def check_authorization
  user = User.find(session[:user])
  unless user.roles.detect{|role|
    role.rights.detect{|right|
      right.action == action_name && right.controller == self.class.controller_path
      }
    }
    flash[:notice] = "You are not authorized..."
    request.env["HTTP_REFERER"] ? (redirect_to :back) : (redirect_to home_url)
    return false
  end
end

 

What’s wrong? Well, if we look at this code we start with a user, get the users roles, get the roles rights, get the rights action & controller. All from code in a controller. That’s a classic example of function objects & data objects. “But,” you say, “this is Rails.” So what. It’s still Object Oriented Programming. Thankfully, this is easy to clean up.

First, we can extract the condition out into a separate method:

def check_authorization
  user = User.find(session[:user])
  unless has_right?(user)
    flash[:notice] = "You are not authorized..."
    request.env["HTTP_REFERER"] ? (redirect_to :back) : (redirect_to home_url)
    return false
  end
end

def has_right?(user)
  user.roles.detect{|role|
    role.rights.detect{|right|
      right.action == action_name && right.controller == self.class.controller_path
    }
  }
end

 

Now we can push the code that deals with the user into the User class:

class User
  #...
  def has_right_for?(action_name, controller_name)
    roles.detect{|role|
      role.rights.detect{|right|
        right.action == action_name && right.controller == controller_name
      }
    }
  end
end

 

Leaving this behind:

def has_right?(user)
  user.has_right_for?(action_name, self.class.controller_path)
end

 

Most of User#has_right_for? can be pushed farther, into Role:

class User
  #...
  def has_right_for?(action_name, controller_name)
    roles.detect{ |role| role.has_right_for?(action_name, controller_name) }
  end
end

class Role
  #...
  def has_right_for?(action_name, controller_name)
    rights.detect{ |right| right.action == action_name && right.controller == controller_name }
  end
end

 

We can go one step farther:

class Role
  #...
  def has_right_for?(action_name, controller_name)
    rights.detect{ |right| right.has_right_for?(action_name, controller_name) }
  end
end

class Right
  #...
  def has_right_for?(action_name, controller_name)
    action == action_name && controller == controller_name
  end
end

 

Now.. the controller has a user in hand. It asks that user if it has the right to access the requested page. That user in turn, has some roles.. it asks each role if it has the right for the requested page, each role in turn asks it’s rights. Everyone in the chain talks only to what it has directly in hand. This is the way it should be. Now the controller doesn’t know or care what it means to have the right to access an action… only that the user knows, and how to ask that user.

Good words about rSpec.

On Ruby: RubyConf*MI Wrap Up:

“On Ruby

Saturday, August 26, 2006

RubyConf*MI Wrap Up

…

I also thought Craig Damyanovich did a great job (especially as a first time presenter. As a nod to his love of hockey, he covered BDD and RSpec in a ‘three period’ format (only in Michigan). Craig was really laid back and seemed completely calm all through his presentation. I know I didn’t ”

 

(Via Pat Eyler’s blog.)

In the fine tradition of Hollywood (who these days is remaking everything from old movies, comic books, and video games in lieu of coming up with original ideas) I am doing a remake of the very first post on my blog (which itself was a repost from my Artima.com blog from Feb 2004). The original post created quite a stir at the time, and lead to many of the ideas that have evolved my understanding of TDD and now BDD.

---

Once upon a time (early 2004) there was a bit of fuss on the testdrivendevelopment Yahoo group about the idea of limiting yourself to one assertion per test method, which is a guideline that others and I offer for TDD work.

An address parser was the example of a situation where it was argued that multiple assertions per test made sense. Date was formatted with one address per line, each in one of the following formats:

1. ADDR1$ADDR2$CSP$COUNTRY
2. ADDR1$ADDR2$CSP
3. ADDR1$CSP$COUNTRY
4. ADDR1$CSP

The poster went on to say:

My first inclination is/was to write a test like this (in Java but you get the idea):

a = CreateObject("Address")
a.GetAddressParts("ADDR1$ADDR2$CITY IL 60563$COUNTRY")
AssertEquals("ADDR1", a.Addr1)
AssertEquals("ADDR2", a.Addr2)
AssertEquals("CITY IL 60563", a.CityStatePostalCd)
AssertEquals("Country", a.Country)

 

They didn’t see how to achieve this with one assertion per test, as there are obviously four things to test in this case. I decided that rather than simply reply, I would write some tests and code to illustrate my view on the matter, and offer a solid response.

For the original post, I chose Squeak Smalltalk and Java. In this remake I’m going to use just Ruby. In the original I said “For the sake of conciseness, I’ll omit any required accessors.” Well.. this time around I’m not going to use any accessors, since I am more & more of the opinion that they are quite simply an idea whose sole purpose is to undermine the very essence of Object-Oriented software. I’ll also be using rSpec rather than an xUnit framework.

So, where to start? Well, it often makes sense to start with something simple to quickly and easily get some code written and working. Then it can be extended and evolved. Here the simplest case is: ADDR1$CSP. There are two requirements in the parsing of this example: that the ADDR1 was recognized, and that the CSP was recognized. Viewed this way, we need two examples.

If we want to avoid accessors (and for this exercise, I do) we need another way to see inside the object were working with. This is an address.. let’s say (for the sake of argument & this exercise) that one of the purposes of having an address is to generate address labels of some sort. We could do that with an address label maker object that would interrogate the address object for it’s contents and use them. A better way is to have an address label builder that the address object gives information to. It would have methods such as street_number=, csp=, etc. This is something that we can use Mocks Objects for in our examples.

So, let’s start with an example for ADDR1:

context "An address with street & csp" do

  specify "should capture street information" do
    builder = mock("builder", null_object => true)
    builder.should_receive(:addr1=).once.with("ADDR1")
    addr = Address.from_string("ADDR1$CITY IL 60563")
    addr.use(builder)
  end

end

 

To get this to pass we need an Address class, a from_string factory method, and a use method.

class Address
  def self.from_string(address_string)
    Address.new
  end

  def use(a_builder)
  end
end

 

This lets our spec run and fail:

An address with street & csp
- should capture street information (FAILED - 1)

1)
Spec::Api::MockExpectationError in 'An address with street & csp should capture street information'
Mock 'builder' expected 'street=' once, but received it 0 times
./address_spec.rb:7:in `'

Finished in 0.003395 seconds

1 specification, 1 failure

 

Now let’s make that work:

class Address
  def self.from_string(address_string)
    addr1, rest = address_string.split('$')
    Address.new(addr1)
  end

  def initialize(addr1)
    @addr1 = addr1
  end

  def use(a_builder)
    a_builder.addr1 = @addr1
  end
end

 

This makes the example work:

An address with street & csp
- should capture street information

Finished in 0.003003 seconds

1 specification, 0 failures

 

That’s well & good. The next test is for CSP.

specify "should capture csp information" do
  builder = mock("builder", :null_object => true)
  builder.should_receive(:csp=).once.with("CITY IL 60563")
  addr = Address.from_string("ADDR1$CITY IL 60563")
  addr.use(builder)
end

 

Resulting in:

An address with street & csp
- should capture street information
- should capture street information (FAILED - 1)

1)
Spec::Api::MockExpectationError in 'An address with street & csp should capture street information'
Mock 'builder' expected 'csp=' once, but received it 0 times
./address_spec.rb:15:in `'

Finished in 0.005866 seconds

2 specifications, 1 failure

 

Address#from_string will need to be extended (and we need to add csp support):

class Address
  def self.from_string(address_string)
    addr1, csp, rest = address_string.split('$')
    Address.new(addr1, csp)
  end

  def initialize(addr1, csp)
    @addr1 = addr1
    @csp = csp
  end

  def use(a_builder)
    a_builder.addr1 = @addr1
    a_builder.csp = @csp
  end
end

 

So. We have two tests for this one situation. Notice the duplication in the tests… the creation of builder & address. This is the context. After refactoring, we have:

require 'address'

context "An address with street & csp" do

  setup do
    @builder = mock("builder", :null_object => true)
    @addr = Address.from_string("ADDR1$CITY IL 60563")
  end

  specify "should capture street information" do
    @builder.should_receive(:addr1=).once.with("ADDR1")
    @addr.use(@builder)
  end

  specify "should capture csp information" do
    @builder.should_receive(:csp=).once.with("CITY IL 60563")
    @addr.use(@builder)
  end
end

 

So, a context that creates the Address instance from the string as well as the mock, and very simple examples that focus on each aspect of that context.

Note that we don’t have any direct expectations in these examples… What’s up? Well, the mock is autoverifying itself at the end of each example, and that is where our expectations are.. on @address‘s interaction with the mock.

The next simplest case is the obvious choice for the next context:

context "An address with street, csp, and country" do

  setup do
    @builder = mock("builder", :null_object => true)
    @addr = Address.from_string("ADDR1$CITY IL 60563$COUNTRY")
  end

end

 

This set of tests will include ones for addr1 and csp as before (since that behaviour is required in this new context) as well as a new test for country:

specify "should capture country information" do
  @builder.should_receive(:country=).once.with("COUNTRY")
  @addr.use(@builder)
end

 

As before, an instance variable and such need to be added to the Address class.

This drives Address to evolve:

class Address
  def self.from_string(address_string)
    addr1, csp, country, rest = address_string.split('$')
    Address.new(addr1, csp, country)
  end

  def initialize(addr1, csp, country)
    @addr1 = addr1
    @csp = csp
    @country = country
  end

  def use(a_builder)
    a_builder.addr1 = @addr1
    a_builder.csp = @csp
    a_builder.country = @country
  end
end

 

Now that we are supporting country, we can go back to the first context and add an example specifying that no country information should be provided to the builder:

specify "should not capture country information" do
  @builder.should_not_receive(:country=)
  @addr.use(@builder)
end

 

A slight tweak to Address#use will make this work:

def use(a_builder)
  a_builder.addr1 = @addr1
  a_builder.csp = @csp
  a_builder.country = @country unless @country.nil?
end

 

From here on, the evolution gets a bit more complex, as we add the ADDR2 option to the mix.

The final code and output is:

address_spec.rb

require 'address'

context "An address with street & csp" do

  setup do
    @builder = mock("builder", :null_object => true)
    @addr = Address.from_string("ADDR1$CITY IL 60563")
  end

  specify "should capture street information" do
    @builder.should_receive(:addr1=).once.with("ADDR1")
    @addr.use(@builder)
  end

  specify "should capture csp information" do
    @builder.should_receive(:csp=).once.with("CITY IL 60563")
    @addr.use(@builder)
  end

  specify "should not capture country information" do
    @builder.should_not_receive(:country=)
    @addr.use(@builder)
  end
end

context "An address with street, csp, and country" do

  setup do
    @builder = mock("builder", :null_object => true)
    @addr = Address.from_string("ADDR1$CITY IL 60563$COUNTRY")
  end

  specify "should capture street information" do
    @builder.should_receive(:addr1=).once.with("ADDR1")
    @addr.use(@builder)
  end

  specify "should capture csp information" do
    @builder.should_receive(:csp=).once.with("CITY IL 60563")
    @addr.use(@builder)
  end

  specify "should capture country information" do
    @builder.should_receive(:country=).once.with("COUNTRY")
    @addr.use(@builder)
  end
end

 

address.rb

class Address
  def self.from_string(address_string)
    addr1, csp, country, rest = address_string.split('$')
    Address.new(addr1, csp, country)
  end

  def initialize(addr1, csp, country)
    @addr1 = addr1
    @csp = csp
    @country = country
  end

  def use(a_builder)
    a_builder.addr1 = @addr1
    a_builder.csp = @csp
    a_builder.country = @country unless @country.nil?
  end
end

 

spec output

An address with street & csp
- should capture street information
- should capture csp information
- should not capture country information

An address with street, csp, and country
- should capture street information
- should capture csp information
- should capture country information

Finished in 0.014 seconds

6 specifications, 0 failures

 

Conclusion

So we took a situation that was thought to require multiple assertions/expectations in a test/example and did it in such as way as to have only one per.

The key is that instead of using a single context with a complex (i.e. multiple expectation) example for each situation, we made each of those situations into a separate context. Now each example focuses on a very small, specific aspect of the behaviour dealt with by its context.

I’m convinced writing examples like this is a useful approach. One advantage is that the resulting examples are simpler and easier to understand. Just as important, and maybe more so, is that by adding the specification of the behavior one tiny piece at a time, you drive toward evolving the code in small, controllable, understandable steps.

It also fits better into the context centered approach that is the recommended way to organize your examples. We set up the object being worked on in setup, and wrote examples of it’s behaviour in that particular context in individual specify clauses.

As I was writing this back in early 2004, something clicked. I saw these test methods (as they are in jUnit/test::unit) as specifications of tiny facets of the required behavior. Thus, it made sense to me to be as gradual as possible about it, driving the evolution of the code in the smallest steps possible. Striving for one assertion per test is a way to do that. This epiphany was one of the main drivers in my deepening understanding of what has been called Test Driven Development (and which we are now considering an aspect of Behaviour Driven Development)

If, however, you view test methods as strictly performing verification, then I can see how it might be seen to make sense to invoke some code and then test all the postconditions. But this view is not TDD (and certainly not BDD), and doesn’t buy you all of the benefits that are possible. I contend that central to TDD is this notion of working in the smallest steps possible, both for the finest-grained long-term verification, and for the most flexible design evolution. Furthermore, this is best done by striving to keep tests/examples as small, focused and simple as possible.

Aiming for one expectation each is one way to get there.

I was just working on some code that needed to extract some optional data from a hash, using it to set an attribute on a Model object. If it wasn’t present in the hash, a default should be used.

I started with something like:

 

if hash.has_key?("Genre")
  genre_name = hash["Genre"]
else
  genre_name = "Undefined"
end

Maybe that could be simplified some:

 

genre_name = hash.has_key?("Genre") ? hash["Genre"] : "Undefined"

Better.. but it still obscures what the intent of this method is.

I ended up extracting the code out into a separate method, and used a guard clause to make the decision:

 

genre_name = genre_name_or_default(hash)
...
def genre_name_or_default(hash)
  return hash["Genre"] if hash.has_key("Genre")
  "Undefined"
end

Clean, very clear.

I might want to use a default for the hash, but for now that’s YAGNI, and this works nicely for my purposes.

Addendum

As Jens points out in his comment, I can use hash.fetch(key, default) for this. In fact that’s what I’ve ended up doing in tis case. However, it is a generally useful approach to extract troublesome or ugly logic into a method of it’s own. Quite often being in a method (and not being afraid to have multiple return points) can drastically simplify and/or clarify logic.

Addendum 2

Simon points out that the default behaviour that the default behaviour of Hash.[] is to return nil. Which in this case will, indeed, mean that the key wasn’t present. So

 

hash["Genre"] or "Undefined"

works great.

As part of my getting back on the rails train, I’ve decided to give TextMate another try as well. So far, so good. Im making a concerted effort to learn the ins & outs of it. I had been using RadRails, but it’s big, and rather slow at times. Also, it’s very obviously *NOT* a Cocoa application. It felt gratingly out of place.

TextMate truly is a nice editor.. it’s no big surprise it won an Apple design award at WWDC earlier this month.

Given my Emacs based “upbringing”, TextMate feels nice. I’m looking forward to getting to know this app well.

UPDATE: While TextMate is a sweet text editor, I’ve since decided that it is not the programming editor for me.. I’ve switched to GNU Emacs on OS X for that.

For anyone learning rails in my wake, here the “Doh!” moments I had as I tried to get many-to-many relationships working. Either it took some digging to find the required information or it wasn’t immediately obvious.

Here’s my list of things I found by trial/error/reading/ and lots of googling (and, yes, it is a verb now.. I’ve been using it as a verb for at least 3 years).

1. Put has_and_belongs_to_many in each class, naming the other class (it’s table name really… a plural)
2. Add instances of one class to the collection in the other, e.g. order.items << album. Do this in only one direction.
3. Before adding to an object’s collection, save the object. E.g

   if order.save
     order.items << an_item
   

   It seems that this is only required in the case where order is a freshly created object. This makes sense as it will not have an id (for the join table) until it is saved. Furthermore, both objects will have to have been previously saved (i.e. have ids).

4. The join table is made up of the names of the two related tables.. in alphabetic order. E.g. items_orders, not orders_items
5. Don’t put an id column in the join tables. Mine had such a column because I sketched out my schema in a migration, not realizing this.
6. In your migrations, use :id => false as a second argument to create_table, e.g.:

   create_table :items_orders, :id => false do |t|
     t.column :item_id, :integer
     t.column  rder_id, :integer
   end
   

If I’ve missed anything on this list, please let me know and I’ll add it.

My ramp up on Rails continues. Today I’ve been getting familiar with ActiveRecords table relationship facilities. Pretty nice. One-to-one and one-to-many were trivial… although I’m currently stuck on getting many-to-many relationship working. I keep making progress in little steps, though.

Well, it’s about time! I’ve always mapped CAPSLOCK to Control (as it should be) on every computer I’ve owned that’s had a caps lock key (the last one without was my Sun 3/160 iirc).

Wired News: Death to Caps Lock:

“Is it time to permanently retire the Caps Lock key? Pieter Hintjens thinks so.

Hintjens, the CEO of iMatix, has launched the Capsoff organization in a campaign urging hardware manufacturers to ditch the oft-abused and misused key. Hintjens’ plan is to build the entire infrastructure for the movement using only freely available tools from Google. He’s already set up a Blogger Capsoff blog and a forum at Google Groups.”