ruby on rails - Rspec test readonly model -


i have small aplication in rails 5. tried use rspec test failed readonly model.

i have readonly model product , normal model productmsp. second 1 list of prices associated product , stored in rails db. product external readonly connection database withdraw list of products.

i added association product spec/factories/product_msps.rb.

factorygirl.define   factory :product_msp     product_id 11     initial_date '01-01-2017'     expiry_date '31-01-2017'     msp 9999.99     association :product   end end

i didn't add new test. when run rspec once again failures. rspec want create products, cannot due readonly database table. 

failures:     1) productmsp validations initial_date cannot empty     failure/error: pm = factorygirl.build(:product_msp, initial_date: nil)             activerecord::readonlyrecord:             product marked readonly                  # ./spec/models/product_msp_spec.rb:17:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>'

below failing test: (there more failures)

require 'rails_helper'  rspec.describe productmsp, type: :model     'initial_date cannot empty'       pm = factorygirl.build(:product_msp, initial_date: nil)       pm.valid?       expect(pm.errors[:initial_date]).to include("can't blank")     end end

spec/factories/products.rb

factorygirl.define   factory :product     id 11     name 'porsche cayenne'   end end

and app/model/product.rb

class product < applicationrecord   self.primary_key = 'tw_id'    def readonly?     true   end    has_many :product_msps    default_scope {where(product_type:1).order(:name)}

a main question is: how deal test , readonly models?

  • is rspec suitable it?

  • should rid of testing readonly models

i searched through internet didn't find examples of such problem. need build app on top of database, have tested somehow. :-)

(for future searchers:) )

you should add skip_create factory read-only model. allows avoiding database record creation , should solve problem this. useful if want create factory class, not connected database (does not inherited `activerecord::base).


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

android - InAppBilling registering BroadcastReceiver in AndroidManifest -

i'm implementing inapp billing in android app. works well, however, i'm trying decouple broadcast receiver activity manifest. suggestion in android's trivialdrive sample: // important: dynamically register broadcast messages updated purchases. // register receiver here instead of <receiver> in manifest // because call getpurchases() @ startup, therefore can ignore // broadcasts sent while app isn't running. // note: registering listener in activity bad idea, done here // because sample. regardless, receiver must registered after // iabhelper setup, before first call getpurchases(). currently there's class extends broadcastreceiver : public class iabbroadcastreceiver extends broadcastreceiver { /** * intent action receiver should filter for. */ public static final string action = "com.android.vending.billing.purchases_updated"; private final iabbroadcastlistener mlistener; public iabbroadcastreceiver(iabbroadcastlistener listener) { m...
Read more

python Tkinter Capturing keyboard events save as one single string -

is possible store keyboard events 1 string? code below stores 1 char , prints it. card reader or bar code reader, contains collection of character/ string not 1 character @ time. goal save char pressed text variable. from tkinter import * root = tk() def key(event): text= event.char text+= event.char print ("pressed", text) def callback(event): frame.focus_set() print ("clicked at", event.x, event.y) frame = frame(root, width=100, height=100) frame.bind("<key>", key) frame.bind("<button-1>", callback) frame.pack() root.mainloop() currently, creating text variable , everytime key() function gets called, , text stores last character typed. you can define text module level variable , , use module level text inside key function - text = '' def key(event): global text text+= event.char print("pressed", text)
Read more

sql server - Why does Linq-to-SQL add unnecessary COUNT()? -

here tables: create table customer ( cid int primary key, name varchar(32) ) create table ord ( oid int primary key, cid int foreign key references customer, address varchar(20) ) here's linq-to-sql statement: var aaa = c in db.customer select new { c, o = c.ord.tolist() }; and here's inexplicable query generated linq-to-sql: select [t0].[cid] [cid], [t0].[name] [name], [t1].[oid] [oid], [t1].[cid] [cid2], [t1].[address] [address], (select count(*) [dbo].[ord] [t2] [t2].[cid] = [t0].[cid]) [value] [dbo].[customer] [t0] left outer join [dbo].[ord] [t1] on [t1].[cid] = [t0].[cid] order [t0].[cid], [t1].[oid] i want understand how rid of count(*) part. it's entirely uncalled for! linq needs count(*) in order determine number of entries returned o = c.ord.tolist() .
Read more