ragaskar · November 19, 2011 16:09 · Nov 19, 2011 · Nov 19, 2011 · Nov 19, 2011
diff --git a/3-after_after_spec.rb b/3-after_after_spec.rb
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+#We can't do a lot here because the interface seems bad -- this test being gnarly is not rspec's fault.
+require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper')
+
+describe "Something doppelganger" do
+  #does login/password matter? Why are we setting them to random values instead of using Factory.build?
+  let(:railcar) { RailCar.new(:login => "a", :password => "b")
+  context "when it is rejected" do
+    #Do these values in the parse response matter? It seems like they don't if we're testing only non-nil
+    #If they don't matter, let's not set them
+    let(:parse_response) do
+      { :requestID => "123",
+        :vehicleCodeRaw => "N9",
+        :requestToken => "AFLAKJFLDKJFSLDKFJSLDFKJn129399NANF)(A)FNnnnfnfnnfnf",
+        :amount => "90.01" }
+    end
+    #Are we sending because these methods are private? If so we shouldn't be exercising them in this test.
+    let(:response) { railcar.send(:commit, request, {}) }
+    subject { response }
+    before do
+      #railcar should not be stubbed if it is unit tested
+      railcar.stub(:parse).and_return(parse_response)
+      railcar.send(:build_request, 9011, "token", {})
+    end
+    #it would be nice if we had an expected name here, not nil is not useful.
+    # It would also be nice if this returned a real object instead of a hash if there are multiple values
+    # If there *are* multiple values, why are we only testing name? If there aren't, why do we have a hash
+    # just for name?
+    its(:name) { should_not be_nil  }
+  end
+end
+
+#This test isn't going to exhibit the true flexibility of let/it/subject because 
+# 1) it only tests a single context, 
+# and 2) it only makes one assertion.
+# its/let/subject when used correctly does a few things:
+# 1) Keeps your tests strictly single assertion unit tests. 
+# 2) No lies in it strings because you don't write them 
+# 3) More concise, less duplication of setup. 
+# 4) If used correctly, makes it really obvious what inputs are varying that you care about 
+
diff --git a/example_its_lets.rb b/example_its_lets.rb
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+# Here's a (contrived, although I often see tests work out neatly like this) example 
+# that shows some of the reasons I like let/it/subject
+
+describe FashionSituation do
+  describe "#is_appropriate?" do
+    let(:situation) { FashionSituation.new(:shirt => false, :shoes => false, :shorts => true, :location => location) }
+    subject { situation.is_appropriate? }
+    context "at a restaurant" do
+      let(:location) { "restaurant" } 
+      it { should be_false }
+    end
+    context "at work" do
+      let(:location) { "work" } 
+      it { should be_false }
+    end
+    context "at the beach" do
+      let(:location) { "beach" } 
+      it { should be_true }
+    end
+  end
+end
diff --git a/example_without_lets.rb b/example_without_lets.rb
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+describe FashionSituation do
+  describe "#is_appropriate?" do
+    context "at a restaurant" do
+      before do
+        @situation = FashionSituation.new(:shirt => false, :shoes => false, :shorts => true, :location => "restaurant")
+      end
+      it "should be inappropriate" do
+        @situation.should_not be_appropriate
+      end
+    end
+    context "at work" do
+      before do
+        @situation = FashionSituation.new(:shirt => false, :shoes => false, :shorts => true, :location => "work")
+      end
+      it "should be inappropriate" do
+        @situation.should_not be_appropriate
+      end
+    end
+    context "at the beach" do
+      before do
+        @situation = FashionSituation.new(:shirt => false, :shoes => false, :shorts => true, :location => "beach")
+      end
+      it "should be appropriate" do
+        @situation.should be_appropriate
+      end
+    end
+  end
+end
diff --git a/before_spec.rb → 1-before_spec.rb b/before_spec.rb → 1-before_spec.rb
diff --git a/after_spec.rb → 2-after_spec.rb b/after_spec.rb → 2-after_spec.rb
diff --git a/after_spec.rb b/after_spec.rb
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper')
+
+describe "Something doppelganger" do
+  it "has an name for a REJECTed rail car" do
+    railcar = RailCar.new :login => "a", :password => "b"
+    railcar.stub(:parse).and_return(
+      :requestID             => "123",
+      :vehicleCodeRaw            => "N9",
+      :requestToken          => "AFLAKJFLDKJFSLDKFJSLDFKJn129399NANF)(A)FNnnnfnfnnfnf",
+      :amount                => "90.01",
+    )
+
+    request = railcar.send(:build_request, 9011, "token", {})
+    response = railcar.send(:commit, request, {})
+    response.name.should_not be_nil
+  end
+end
diff --git a/before_spec.rb b/before_spec.rb
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/../spec_helper')
+
+describe "Something doppelganger" do
+  describe "RailCar" do
+    let(:gateway) { RailCar.new :login => "a", :password => "b" }
+
+    describe "#commit" do
+      let(:response) { railcar.send :commit, request, {} }
+
+      describe "response" do
+        subject { response }
+
+        context "with a REJECTed rail car" do
+          let(:request) { gateway.send(:build_auth_request, 9011, "token", {}) }
+
+          before {
+            railcar.stub(:parse).and_return(
+              :requestID             => "123",
+              :vehicleCodeRaw            => "N9",
+              :requestToken          => "AFLAKJFLDKJFSLDKFJSLDFKJn129399NANF)(A)FNnnnfnfnnfnf",
+              :amount                => "90.01",
+            )
+          }
+
+          its(:name) { should_not be_nil }
+        end
+      end
+    end
+  end
+end
No results found