rspec testing has_many :through and after_save

Question

I have an (I think) relatively straightforward has_many :through relationship with a join table:

class User < ActiveRecord::Base
  has_many :user         


        

Answer 1

I've had similar problems in the past that have been resolved by reloading the association (rather than the parent object).

Does it work if you reload thing.followers in the RSpec?

it "should have followers" do
  @thing.followers.reload
  @thing.followers.should == [@user]
end 

EDIT

If (as you mention) you're having problems with the callbacks not getting fired then you could do this reloading in the object itself:

class Thing < ActiveRecord::Base
  after_save { followers.reload}
  after_save :do_stuff
  ...
end

or

class Thing < ActiveRecord::Base
  ...
  def do_stuff
    followers.reload
    ...
  end
end

I don't know why RSpec has issues with not reloading associations but I've hit the same types of problems myself

Edit 2

Although @dantswain confirmed that the followers.reload helped alleviate some of the problems it still didn't fix all of them.

To do that, the solution needed a fix from @kikuchiyo which required calling save after doing the callbacks in Thing:

describe Thing do
  before :each do
    ...
    @user.things << @thing
    @thing.run_callbacks(:save)
  end 
  ...
end

Final suggestion

I believe this is happening because of the use of << on a has_many_through operation. I don't see that the << should in fact trigger your after_save event at all:

Your current code is this:

describe Thing do
  before(:each) do
    @user = User.create!(:name => "Fred")
    @thing = Thing.create!(:name => "Foo")    
    @user.things << @thing
  end
end

class Thing < ActiveRecord::Base
  after_save :do_stuff
  ...

  def do_stuff
   followers.each { |f| puts "I'm followed by #{f.name}" }
  end
end

and the problem is that the do_stuff is not getting called. I think this is the correct behaviour though.

Let's go through the RSpec:

describe Thing do
  before(:each) do
    @user = User.create!(:name => "Fred")
    # user is created and saved

    @thing = Thing.create!(:name => "Foo")    
    # thing is created and saved

    @user.things << @thing
    # user_thing_relationship is created and saved
    # no call is made to @user.save since nothing is updated on the user
  end
end

The problem is that the third step does not actually require the thing object to be resaved - its simply creating an entry in the join table.

If you'd like to make sure that the @user does call save you could probably get the effect you want like this:

describe Thing do
  before(:each) do
    @thing = Thing.create!(:name => "Foo")    
    # thing is created and saved

    @user = User.create!(:name => "Fred")
    # user is created BUT NOT SAVED

    @user.things << @thing
    # user_thing_relationship is created and saved
    # @user.save is also called as part of the addition
  end
end

You may also find that the after_save callback is in fact on the wrong object and that you'd prefer to have it on the relationship object instead. Finally, if the callback really does belong on the user and you do need it to fire after creating the relationship you could use touch to update the user when a new relationship is created.

Answer 2

UPDATED ANSWER ** This passes rspec, without stubbing, running callbacks for save (after_save callback included ), and checks that @thing.followers is not empty before trying to access its elements. (;

describe Thing do
  before :each do
    @user  = User.create(:name => "Fred");
    @thing = Thing.new(:name => 'Foo')
    @user.things << @thing
    @thing.run_callbacks(:save)
  end 

  it "should have created a relationship" do
    @thing.followers.should == [@user]
    puts @thing.followers.inspect
  end 
end
class Thing < ActiveRecord::Base
  after_save :some_function
  has_many :user_following_thing_relationships
  has_many :followers, :through => :user_following_thing_relationships, :source => :user

  def some_function
    the_followers = followers
    unless the_followers.empty?
      puts "accessing followers here: the_followers = #{the_followers.inspect}..."
    end
  end
end

ORIGINAL ANSWER **

I was able to get things to work with the after_save callback, so long as I did not reference followers within the body / block of do_stuff. Do you have to reference followers in the real method you are calling from after_save ?

Updated code to stub out callback. Now model can remain as you need it, we show @thing.followers is indeed set as we expected, and we can investigate the functionality of do_stuff / some_function via after_save in a different spec.

I pushed a copy of the code here: https://github.com/kikuchiyo/RspecHasMany

And spec passing thing* code is below:

# thing_spec.rb
require 'spec_helper'

describe Thing do
    before :each do
        Thing.any_instance.stub(:some_function) { puts 'stubbed out...' }
        Thing.any_instance.should_receive(:some_function).once
        @thing = Thing.create(:name => "Foo");
        @user  = User.create(:name => "Fred");
        @user.things << @thing
    end

    it "should have created a relationship" do
        @thing.followers.should == [@user]
        puts @thing.followers.inspect
    end
end
# thing.rb
class Thing < ActiveRecord::Base
    after_save :some_function
    has_many :user_following_thing_relationships
    has_many :followers, :through => :user_following_thing_relationships, :source => :user

    def some_function
        # well, lets me do this, but I cannot use @x without breaking the spec...
        @x = followers 
        puts 'testing puts hear shows up in standard output'
        x ||= 1
        puts "testing variable setting and getting here: #{x} == 1\n\t also shows up in standard output"
        begin
            # If no stubbing, this causes rspec to fail...
            puts "accessing followers here: @x = #{@x.inspect}..."
        rescue
            puts "and this is but this is never seen."
        end
    end
end

Answer 3

My guess is that you need to reload your Thing instance by doing @thing.reload (I'm sure there's a way to avoid this, but that might get your test passing at first and then you can figure out where you've gone wrong).

Few questions:

I don't see you calling @thing.save in your spec. Are you doing that, just like in your console example?

Why are you calling t.save and not u.save in your console test, considering you're pushing t onto u? Saving u should trigger a save to t, getting the end result you want, and I think it would "make more sense" considering you are really working on u, not t.