Double-Blind Test-Driven Development in Rails 3: Part 3

  1. Simple Tests
  2. Double-Blind Tests
  3. Making it Practical with RSpec Matchers

This is the last article in this series describing the concept of double-blind test-driven development. This style of testing can add time to development, but this can be cut significantly using RSpec matchers.

If you’re not familiar with matchers, they’re the helpers that give RSpec its english-like syntax, and they can be a powerful tool speeding up all of your test-driven development – whether you follow the double-blind method or not.

If you’re using RSpec, you’re already using their built-in matchers. Say we have a Site model, and its url method takes the host attribute and appends the ‘http://’ protocol. Here’s a likely test:

describe Site, 'url'
  it "should begin with http://" do
    site = :host => ''
    site.url.should equal('')

The equal() method in the code above is the matcher. You can pass it to any of RSpec’s should or should_not methods, and it will magically work.

But the magic isn’t that hard, and you can harness it yourself for custom matchers that conform to your application.

The Many Faces of Custom RSpec Matchers

While I don’t want this article to turn into a primer on custom RSpec matchers (it’s a little off-topic), I’ll give you the three styles of defining them, and explain my recommendations. There are simple matchers, the Matcher DSL, and full RSpec matcher classes.

Let’s start by writing a test we want to run:

it "should be at least 5" do
  6.should be_at_least(5)

This test should always pass, provided we’ve defined our matcher correctly. The first way to do this is the simple matcher:

def be_at_least(minimum)
  simple_matcher("at least #{minimum}"){|actual| actual >= minimum}

As you might guess, actual represents the object that “.should” whatever – in this case “.should be_at_least(5)”. This version makes a lot of assumptions, including the auto-creation of generic pass and fail messages.

If you want a little more control, you can step up to RSpec’s Matcher DSL. This is the middle-of-the-road option for creating custom matchers:

RSpec::Matchers.define :be_at_least do |minimum|
  match do |actual|
    actual >= minimum

  failure_message_for_should do |actual|
    "expected #{actual} to be at least #{minimum}"

  failure_message_for_should_not do |actual|
    "expected #{actual} to be less than #{minimum}"

  description do
    "be at least #{minimum}"

Now we’re rocking custom failure messages, and test names. This is pretty cool, and honestly how I started out doing matchers. It’s also how I started out doing the matchers for double-blind testing.

The problem is that by skipping the creation of actual matcher classes, we lose the ability to do things like inheritance. Not a big deal if our matchers stay simple, but they won’t. Not if we use them as often as we should! I found myself re-defining the same helper methods in each matcher I defined this way.

So let’s see just how daunting a full-fledged custom matcher class really is:

module CustomMatcher  
  class BeAtLeast
    def initialize(minimum)  
      @minimum = minimum
    def matches?(actual)  
      @actual = actual
      @actual >= @minimum
    def failure_message_for_should  
      "expected #{@actual} to be at least #{@minimum}"  
    def failure_message_for_should_not  
      "expected #{@actual} to be less than #{@minimum}"  
  def be_at_least(expected)  

This isn’t so bad! We’re defining a new class, but you can see it doesn’t have to inherit from anything, or use any unholy Ruby voodoo to work.

We just have to define four methods: initialize, match? (which returns true or false), and the two failure message methods. Along the way, we set some instance variables so we can access the data when we need it. Finally, we define a method that creates a new instance of this class, and that’s what RSpec will rely on.

You can add as many other methods as these four will rely on. But you also get other benefits over the DSL. You can use inheritance, moving common methods up the chain so you only have to define them once, instead of in each matcher definition. You can also write setup/teardown code in your parent classes, make default arguments a breeze, and standardize any error handling. I do all of these in the matchers I created for the example app.

The bottom line is this: defining your own matcher classes directly really DRY’s up your matchers, and that always makes life simpler. I think it’s the only way to go for serious and heavy RSpec users. It allows the class for my validate_presence_of matcher to be this short and sweet:

module DoubleBlindMatchers
  class ValidatePresenceOf < ValidationMatcher
    def default_options
      {:message => "can't be blank", :with => 'x'}

    def match
      set_to @options[:with]
      check !@object.errors[@attribute].include?(@options[:message]), shouldnt_exist
      set_to nil
      check !@object.valid?, valid_when('nil')
      check @object.errors[@attribute].include?(@options[:message])
      set_to ""
      check !@object.valid?, valid_when("blank")
      check @object.errors[@attribute].include?(@options[:message])
  def validate_presence_of expected, options = {} expected, options

And the Teacher model, which grew considerably during our double-blind testing, now looks like this (in its entirety):

# spec/models/teacher_spec.rb

require 'spec_helper'

describe Teacher do
  it {should have_many :subjects}
  it {should validate_presence_of :name}
  it {should validate_length_of :name, :maximum => 50, :message => "must be 50 characters or less"}
  it {should validate_presence_of :salary}
  it {should validate_numericality_of :salary, :within => (20_000..100_000), :message => "must be between $20K and $100K"}


Now that you’ve seen my entire proposal for double-blind testing, let me know what you think. Be cruel if you must, it’s the only way I’ll learn. I’ll do the best to explain (not defend) my reasoning, and keep an open mind to changes.

I’ll also be publishing my double-blind matchers as a gem so you can add them to your project.


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: