How can I use mock models in the specifications of an AuthLogic controller?

Question

I am trying to write specifications for a controller without using instruments (using model models instead). This controller requires the user to log in to the system for which I use AuthLogic , following the recommendations of the author .

describe UsersController do def mock_user(stubs={}) @mock_user ||= mock_model(User, stubs) end context 'when logged in' do before { activate_authlogic } it "exposes the logged-in user as @user in response to GET (show)" do UserSession.create(mock_user) ... end ... end ... end 

All of these examples do not work on the UserSession.create(...) , reporting the effect:

 Mock 'User_1005' received unexpected message :changed? with (no args) 

I am not sure how to solve this; taunts with :changed? => false :changed? => false appropriate?

Answer 1

Iain has published a solution for using layouts with AuthLogic . To rephrase, the following helpers are included in spec_helpers.rb :

 def current_user(stubs = {}) @current_user ||= mock_model(User, stubs) end def user_session(stubs = {}, user_stubs = {}) @current_user_session ||= mock_model(UserSession, {:user => current_user(user_stubs)}.merge(stubs)) end def login(session_stubs = {}, user_stubs = {}) UserSession.stub!(:find).and_return(user_session(session_stubs, user_stubs)) end def logout @user_session = nil end 

I have included this in my specifications and I find that it does exactly what I was hoping for. I have specifications of a working controller that explicate the model layout for login, so now they don’t all break when I add a field to User. An example implementation of this in the specification is as follows:

 describe SecretsController do before { login } it "should be very very secret!" end 

PS I hate answering my question, but this is the answer I was looking for; I just did not find it early enough.

Answer 2

Authlogic expects the entry to act as the active instance of the entry. You can use a real instance or layout, but if you use a layout / stub, you must be sure that it answers all the methods required by Authlogic.

I would suggest using a real active recording object instead of a layout. If you do not want to use the appliance, you can use Factory.

The final option should be to pass a layout that responds to any methods (you can easily accomplish this using the method_missing method). The problem with this solution is that you don’t know in advance what value a particular method call should return.

Yes, you can pass false, but this is not a solution. This will require manually trying / adding a default value until you find a mock object that answers all Authlogic requests. But this will require you to constantly comply with authlogic for any internal changes in order to fix unanswered calls to your stub.

Answer 3

In Rails 3, this bullying of UserSession no longer works, since AuthLogic UserSession is not an instance of ActiveRecord :: Base. Fix what works for me:

 class UserSession < Authlogic::Session::Base extend ActiveModel::Naming end 

Answer 4

I found that mocking autologous objects were heavy, and I eventually abandoned the mockery. Instead, I now use the generator approach using object daddy . Now my functional tests are much happier. BTW, shoulda + object_daddy is absolutely rocky. In the case of transactional contexts, make sure my test database remains clean and I don’t need to mock simple activerecord objects.