2
\$\begingroup\$

There are three scenarios only for when the sign up validations fail, so is there a better way of representing them rather than having 4 scenarios? I don't want to create a model folder so please don't suggest that.

Is there a better way of representing this RSpec code on Rails using Capybara?

feature 'Login' do
  before do
    FactoryGirl.create(:user)
  end

  scenario "success login", js: true do
    # set_speed(:slow)
    visit root_path
    click_link 'Login'

    fill_in 'email', :with => 'test@example.com'
    fill_in 'password', :with => 'password'
    click_button 'Login'

    expect(page).to have_content('Logged in successfully')
  end

  scenario "failed login", js: true do
    # set_speed(:slow)
    visit root_path
    click_link 'Login'

    fill_in 'email', :with => 'failed@login.com'
    fill_in 'password', :with => 'something failed'
    click_button 'Login'

    expect(page).to have_content('Invalid login/password combination')
  end
end

feature "Sign Up" do
  scenario "success sign up", js:true do
    visit root_path
    click_link 'Login'
    click_link 'Sign Up'

    fill_in 'user[email]', :with=>'signup@example.com'
    fill_in 'user[password]', :with=> 'password'
    fill_in 'user[password_confirmation]', :with=> 'password'
    click_button 'Create User'
    expect(page).to have_content('User successfully added.')
  end


  scenario "failed sign up/Wrong email format", js:true do
    visit root_path
    click_link 'Login'
    click_link 'Sign Up'  
    fill_in 'user[email]', :with=>'signup.example.com'
    fill_in 'user[password]', :with=> 'password'
    fill_in 'user[password_confirmation]', :with=> 'password'
    click_button 'Create User'
    expect(page).to have_content('is invalid')
  end

  scenario "failed sign up/Short Email address", js:true  do
    visit root_path
    click_link 'Login'
    click_link 'Sign Up'
    fill_in 'user[email]', :with=>'sign'
    fill_in 'user[password]', :with=> 'password'
    fill_in 'user[password_confirmation]', :with=> 'password'
    click_button 'Create User'
    expect(page).to have_content('is too short (minimum is 5 characters)')
  end 

  scenario "failed sign up/Long Email address", js:true  do
    visit root_path
    click_link 'Login'
    click_link 'Sign Up'
    fill_in 'user[email]', :with=>'fillinginwritingwronglongpasswordstogetanerror@gmail.com'
    fill_in 'user[password]', :with=> 'password'
    fill_in 'user[password_confirmation]', :with=> 'password'
    click_button 'Create User'
    expect(page).to have_content('is too long (maximum is 50 characters)')
  end 

end
\$\endgroup\$

migrated from stackoverflow.com Dec 3 '14 at 11:14

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

2
\$\begingroup\$

Instead of creating 3 long signup features for 3 diff email cases, you could do something like:

describe "email is in wrong format" do
  let(:user) {FactoryGirl.create(:user)}
  before {user.email = something.with.wrongformat}
  it {should_not be_valid}
end

describre "too long email" do
  let(:user) {FactoryGirl.create(:user)}
  before {user.email = ("a"*60)+"@gmail.com"}
  it {should_not be_valid}
end

It'll be same as signup process coz in both you deal with user creation.

And also as for @tokland answer.

I think it could be better not to repeat pattern of:

it "......." do
  expect(page).to ......
end

But just add subject {page} after before block on the top. It allows you to write just like:

describe "....." do
  before {visit root_path}
  it {should have_content('Desired content'}
end
\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

I think some of your expectations might lead to brittle tests. I would modify the expectations a little. For example:

  expect(page).to have_content('Logged in successfully')

What happens if you changed "Logged in successfully" to "Welcome, mate!", or "Merry Christmas, Mohamad"? Your tests will fail even though the code is sound.

Is "Logged in successfully" part of your spec? Or is your spec "The user should be signed in and have a session."

I think that looking for a specific CSS class on the page, as well as other classes, (link classes that should or should not be present if the user is signed in) might be more robust. I would even look for link text, like "Sign in" and "Sign out".

Sure, those can change too, even CSS classes. But they're less likely to change than messages to the user.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Hi Mohammad, this was a basic test. I am new to rspec and was just testing out. I do understand that the testing scenario is not strong enough and i do know i need to aply more complex testing procedures. Thanks for the mention. \$\endgroup\$ – Kingsley Simon Dec 5 '14 at 2:08
4
\$\begingroup\$

Some comments:

  • Rspec expects the concatenation of feature and `scenario to form a human readable text.

  • AFAIK, the orthodoox structure for specs is to perform the actions in the before block and only assertions in it blocks.

  • Use before blocks to keep your code DRY.

  • Personal opinion: in a feature spec, the less app internals you use, the better. So I'd write "/" instead of root_path.

  • The user/password info a in the factory, I'd prefer explicit attributes on the creation.

That's how I'd write the Login feature, the same ideas apply for Signup:

feature 'Login' do
  before do
    FactoryGirl.create(:user, :email => "test@example.com", :password => "password")
    visit root_path
    click_link 'Login'
  end

  scenario "with valid user/password", js: true do
    before do
      fill_in 'email', :with => 'test@example.com'
      fill_in 'password', :with => 'password'
      click_button 'Login'
    end

    it "shows the logged in message" do
      expect(page).to have_content('Logged in successfully')
    end
  end

  scenario "with wrong user/password", js: true do
    before do
      fill_in 'email', :with => 'failed@login.com'
      fill_in 'password', :with => 'something failed'
      click_button 'Login'
    end

    it "shows an error message" do
      expect(page).to have_content('Invalid login/password combination')
    end
  end
end
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I agree with your use of before. And I think it's a fair point to use "/" instead of root_path, though I wouldn't insist on it. I'd say using route helpers are fair abstraction, esp. if you have good routing specs already. The root path is a bit special, of course, as it's always "/" - no names or words to complicate things. Anyway, if simple, readable path are a feature in your app, it's probably good to hand-write them. But using the helpers is just fine too. \$\endgroup\$ – Flambino Dec 4 '14 at 0:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ prefer to define the route with simple readable path. Good mention on the before. Thanks \$\endgroup\$ – Kingsley Simon Dec 5 '14 at 2:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.