This is the 3rd part of a 4 part series covering the rom-rb and dry-rb suites of gems.

In this 3rd part, we're going to look at how we can test the application that we've built so far. In particular, we'll test three classes:

The contract -- to ensure it validates input correctly

The repository -- to ensure we can insert data into our database correctly and that we could find data once it is inserted

The transaction -- to ensure that we can process the whole transaction correctly

When we get up to the transaction part, we'll see how we can use one more feature of dry-auto_inject to stub out the repository dependency in this particular test. Why would we want to stub out this dependency? Because we already have tests that make sure that our repository works! We don't need to test it again a second time in the transaction class.

Let's get started!

Adding RSpec

First things first! We will need to set up the RSpec testing framework, and a gem called database_cleaner-sequel . The database cleaner gem will ensure that our database is kept pristine across the different tests in our application. If we have data "leaking" across tests, that data may influence the outcome of other tests.

Let's add these gems to our Gemfile now:

group :test do gem 'rspec' gem 'database_cleaner-sequel' end

We've put these gems in a "test" group, as we will not want them installed when we deploy to production.

Then we'll install these gems locally with bundle install .

Next up, we can initialize RSpec by running:

bundle exec rspec --init

This will create us a spec directory with a file called spec_helper.rb in it. Here's that file with the comments removed and with the database cleaner configuration added:

RSpec . configure do | config | config . expect_with :rspec do | expectations | expectations . include_chain_clauses_in_custom_matcher_descriptions = true end config . mock_with :rspec do | mocks | mocks . verify_partial_doubles = true end config . shared_context_metadata_behavior = :apply_to_host_groups config . before do DatabaseCleaner . clean end end require_relative '../config/application' Bix :: Application . finalize! require 'database_cleaner/sequel' DatabaseCleaner . strategy = :truncation

At the bottom of this file, I've also added two lines to require config/application.rb and to finalize our application. This will ensure that by the time the tests run everything for our application has been loaded.

At the bottom of the configure block, we clean the database to ensure that each and every test starts out with a completely empty database. How that database gets cleaned is defined by the final two lines in this file: it's a truncation strategy meaning that each table in our database will be truncated before the test runs.

That's all the setup that we'll need to do here. Let's write our first couple of tests for the contract.

Testing the contract

When we go to test a contract, we want to be sure that both the valid and invalid paths are covered effectively. Let's start off with the invalid paths first and we'll finish with the valid one. We'll create a new file in spec/contracts/users/create_user_spec.rb :

require 'spec_helper' RSpec . describe Bix :: Contracts :: Users :: CreateUser do context "requires first_name" do let ( :input ) do { last_name: "Bigg" , age: 32 } end let ( :result ) { subject . call ( input ) } it "is invalid" do expect ( result ). to be_failure expect ( result . errors [ :first_name ]). to include ( "is missing" ) end end context "requires last_name" do let ( :input ) do { first_name: "Ryan" , age: 32 } end let ( :result ) { subject . call ( input ) } it "is invalid" do expect ( result ). to be_failure expect ( result . errors [ :last_name ]). to include ( "is missing" ) end end end

In both of these tests, we're setting up some invalid input for the contract. And also in both of these tests, we're asserting that the contract shows us an error indicating either the first_name or last_name fields are missing.

We can run this test with bundle exec rspec . When we do this, we'll see that the contract is working as intended:

2 examples, 0 failures

This is good to see, and will now provide us with a safety net. If someone was to delete one of the lines from the contract perhaps accidentally, then our tests would catch that.

Let's add another test for the happy path, the path of successful validation, to this file too:

RSpec . describe Bix :: Contracts :: Users :: CreateUser do context "given valid parameters" do let ( :input ) do { first_name: "Ryan" , last_name: "Bigg" , age: 32 } end let ( :result ) { subject . call ( input ) } it "is valid" do expect ( result ). to be_success end end ...

In this test, we provide all the correct values for the input and therefore our contract should be successful. Let's run the tests again and see:

3 examples, 0 failures

Great!

We're able to test our contract just like a standard Ruby class. We initialize the contract, and then depending on the input it is given, the contract with either succeed or fail.

Testing the repository

To test the repository, we can take the same kind of path. For this repository's tests, we need to assert that the create method for Bix::Repos::UserRepo does a few things. What things? Well, let's look at our code for the repository:

module Bix module Repos class UserRepo < ROM :: Repository [ :users ] include Import [ "container" ] struct_namespace Bix commands :create , use: :timestamps , plugins_options: { timestamps: { timestamps: %i(created_at updated_at) } } def all users . to_a end end end end

The repository has a create method and with this method we need to make sure:

The method returns a Bix::User object -- because struct_namespace has configured the repository to use the Bix namespace for all structs.

object -- because has configured the repository to use the namespace for all structs. That the Bix::User object returned has an id attribute -- this ID is automatically set by the database

object returned has an attribute -- this ID is automatically set by the database That both created_at and updated_at are set automatically -- based on how we've configured the command at the top of the repository.

The repository also has an all method, and just to be thorough we can add a simple test for this method to assert that Bix::User objects are returned.

Let's add the tests for the create method first. We'll create a new file at spec/repos/user_repo_spec.rb for these tests:

require "spec_helper" RSpec . describe Bix :: Repos :: UserRepo do context "#create" do it "creates a user" do user = subject . create ( first_name: "Ryan" , last_name: "Bigg" , age: 32 , ) expect ( user ). to be_a ( Bix :: User ) expect ( user . id ). not_to be_nil expect ( user . first_name ). to eq ( "Ryan" ) expect ( user . last_name ). to eq ( "Bigg" ) expect ( user . created_at ). not_to be_nil expect ( user . updated_at ). not_to be_nil end end end

This test asserts that when we call create on our repository that it will return a Bix::User object and that the object has values for id , first_name , last_name , created_at and updated_at .

If we run this test with bundle exec rspec , we'll see that it passes:

4 examples, 0 failures

Good! We've now asserted that at least the struct_namespace and commands methods from our repository are working as they should. If a mistake was to be made, like accidentally removing the struct_namespace method from the repository, our test would break:

1) Bix::Repos::UserRepo#create creates a user Failure/Error: expect(user).to be_a(Bix::User) expected #<ROM::Struct::User ...> to be a kind of Bix::User

The issue with this repository returning a ROM::Struct::User object instead of a Bix::User object is that the ROM::Struct::User objects will not have access to any of Bix::User 's methods, like full_name . If we had this mistake in our application, and we tried using User#full_name then our application would break. This demonstrates why it's important to have tested that struct_namespace is working.

Let's add another quick test to our repository to test all :

context "#all" do before do subject . create ( first_name: "Ryan" , last_name: "Bigg" , age: 32 ) end it "returns all users" do users = subject . all expect ( users . count ). to eq ( 1 ) expect ( users . first ). to be_a ( Bix :: User ) end end

This test uses create to setup a user in our database, and then asserts that when we call all we get a user back.

If we run this test, we'll see that it's already working:

5 examples, 0 failures

This means that our all method now has some test coverage. If this method was to break somehow, then our test would indicate that the method was faulty and then we wwould know to fix it.

Testing the transaction

So far, our testing of contracts and repositories has been very straightforward Ruby class tests. We have relied on subject from RSpec which is a method that behaves like this:

def subject <described class>.new end

Now we're going to look at how to test a transaction, and here's where things are going to get more interesting. Rather than relying on RSpec's own subject , we're going to define our own. And when we define our own, we're going to use a feature of dry_auto-inject , called dependency injection. This feature will allow us to inject a stubbed repository into our transaction, so that we don't have to hit the database for our transaction's test.

Not hitting the database means that we will save time on this test: there's no need to make a request to a system outside of our Ruby code, and that'll also mean that database_cleaner will not need to clean anything from the database. Ultimately, by injecting the repository dependency into our application's transactions when we're testing them means that we can have fast transcation tests.

Let's look at how to do this by creating a new file at spec/transactions/users/create_user_spec.rb :

require 'spec_helper' RSpec . describe Bix :: Transactions :: Users :: CreateUser do let ( :user_repo ) { double ( "UserRepo" ) } let ( :user ) { Bix :: User . new ( id: 1 , first_name: "Ryan" ) } subject { described_class . new ( user_repo: user_repo ) } context "with valid input" do let ( :input ) do { first_name: "Ryan" , last_name: "Bigg" , age: 32 , } end it "creates a user" do expect ( user_repo ). to receive ( :create ) { user } result = subject . call ( input ) expect ( result ). to be_success expect ( result . success ). to eq ( user ) end end end

In this test, we define our own subject block, which will override RSpec's default. We inject the user_repo dependency into the transaction object by passing a user_repo key in the new method. This works because dry-auto_inject re-defines initialize for classes when we use this syntax:

include Import [ "contracts.users.create_user" , "repos.user_repo" ]

By default, dry-auto_inject will load the contract class Bix::Contracts::Users::CreateUser , as well as the repo class Bix::Repos::UserRepo and provide them to the class through the create_user and user_repo methods automatically. The keys that we provide to Import[] here match the keys that are automatically defined by dry-system when it automatically registers the components for our application.

If we want to swap in something else for either the contract or the repository, we can do that by passing in a key matching the name (either create_user or user_repo ) when we initialize this class. Just like we do in our test!

If we wanted to do this ourselves, without any sort of dry gem magic, it would look like this:

attr_reader :user_repo , :create_user def initialize ( user_repo: Bix :: Repos :: UserRepo . new , create_user: Bix :: Contracts :: Users :: CreateUser . new ) @user_repo = user_repo @create_user = create_user end

As we can see, by using dry-auto_inject along with dry-system we get to save a lot of typing.

Let's look at that test again:

require 'spec_helper' RSpec . describe Bix :: Transactions :: Users :: CreateUser do let ( :user_repo ) { double ( Bix :: Repos :: UserRepo ) } let ( :user ) { Bix :: User . new ( id: 1 , first_name: "Ryan" ) } subject { described_class . new ( user_repo: user_repo ) } context "with valid input" do let ( :input ) do { first_name: "Ryan" , last_name: "Bigg" , age: 32 , } end it "creates a user" do expect ( user_repo ). to receive ( :create ) { user } result = subject . call ( input ) expect ( result ). to be_success expect ( result . success ). to eq ( user ) end end end

The test asserts that when we use subject.call that the repository receives the create method once. We've stubbed this method to return a Bix::User object, and that's what we'll see when we call result.success at the end of the test.

Let's run this test and we'll see how it goes:

6 examples, 0 failures

Success! We're able to test our transaction without it hitting the database at all. This means that our transaction test is isolated from the database, leading to it being quick. While we only have one transaction test now, as this application grows and we add further transaction tests this quickness will quickly pile-up to a big benefit.

There's also another benefit of this isolation: if we had database constraints then we would have to cater for those in this test. Imagine for instance that when we created users that they had to be associated with a "Group" and that Groups had to be associated with an "Account". In a normal application to test such a thing, we would need to create three separate objects our database: an account, a group, and a user.

For one test, it won't matter too much. But if accounts, groups and users are the core of our application, it would quickly stack up to lots of database calls. By stubbing out the user repository dependency while testing this transaction, we have isolated that test from any database concern. A better place to test that sort of database concern would be in the repository test, anyway.

To finish up, let's add one more test for what happens when this transaction fails due to invalid input:

context "with invalid input" do let ( :input ) do { last_name: "Bigg" , age: 32 , } end it "does not create a user" do expect ( user_repo ). not_to receive ( :create ) result = subject . call ( input ) expect ( result ). to be_failure expect ( result . failure . errors [ :first_name ]). to include ( "is missing" ) end end

This input is missing a first_name key, and so our transaction should fail. This means that the user_repo should never receive a create method, because our transaction will only call that if the validate step passes. When the validation fails, we would expect the result from this transaction to be a failure, and that failure to contain errors indicating what went wrong.

When we run this test with bundle exec rspec , we'll see it pass:

7 examples, 0 failures

Summary

In this 3rd part of the ROM and Dry showcase, we've seen how easy it is to add tests to our application to ensure that the individual parts of the application are working.

We saw that in order to test a contract and a repository, we can initialize either class and call the methods we want to test. There's nothing particularly special that we've had to do to test these classes; we treat them like the plain Ruby classes they are.

When testing the transaction, we've chosen to isolate those tests from the database by injecting a stubbed UserRepo object in place of the real thing. This isolation will mean that our tests will not have to concern themselves with setting up database state -- for instance, if we had foreign key constraints -- and over time it will mean that our transaction tests will be lightning fast.

In the next part of this series, we'll add the final piece of our application to our stack: a way to make HTTP requests. And we'll definitely be adding tests for this too!