Ah, that's clever. Thanks. On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:43 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Stefan Kanev <stefan.ka...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi all. > > Occasionally, I write specs that verify the order in which some > ActiveRecord > > objects are returned. For example, in a toy project I do: > > > > Reply.stub :per_page => 2 > > topic.replies_on_page(1).should == [second, first] > > > > The spec out quickly get unwieldy when it fails: > > > > 1) Topic paginates its replies in chronological order > > Failure/Error: topic.replies_on_page(1).should == [second, first] > > expected: [#<Reply id: 20, topic_id: 21, user_id: 98, body: "Body", > > created_at: "2011-04-07 06:38:34", updated_at: "2011-04-08 06:38:34">, > > #<Reply id: 19, topic_id: 21, user_id: 97, body: "Body", created_at: > > "2011-04-06 06:38:34", updated_at: "2011-04-08 06:38:34">] > > got: [#<Reply id: 19, topic_id: 21, user_id: 97, body: "Body", > > created_at: "2011-04-06 06:38:34", updated_at: "2011-04-08 06:38:34">, > > #<Reply id: 20, topic_id: 21, user_id: 98, body: "Body", created_at: > > "2011-04-07 06:38:34", updated_at: "2011-04-08 06:38:34">] (using ==) > > > > This is a rather simple example with a simple model. If Topic would have > > more columns or the list contains more items, it quickly gets very hard > to > > understand the failure. > > I tried overriding #inpsect in my models, but I'm not sure I like that. > > Results are a lot better, but now using rails console gets trickier. > > Is there a way to do this just for RSpec? > > Of course! Remember, this is just Ruby. Put something like this in > spec/spec_helper.rb: > > #################### > module InspectModelForRSpec > def inspect > ... > end > end > > ActiveRecord::Base.send(:include, InspectModelForRSpec) > #################### > > Now, as long as the code is not inadvertently loading up > spec/spec_helper.rb when running the app or console, you'll only see > the result of this when you run specs. > > HTH, > David > > >I found an old thread in > > rspec-devel [1], but I don't think it ever resulted to something that got > > merged. > > [1]: > http://old.nabble.com/Better-inspect-method-for-active-record-objects-in-rspec-rails-td20297318.html > > _______________________________________________ > > rspec-users mailing list > > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
_______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
