RSpec and Rcov are not playing nice

So I ran into this weird problem with RSpec (the unit test (spec) framework for Ruby) and Rcov (a code coverage tool also for Ruby). At some point, usually as your list of specs gets longer, if you run your specs with Rcov they blow up with a seg fault. I’ve seen this happen on OSX, Windows, and now Linux. On my last project we just had to give up running Rcov (which sucked). This time Ricky Lui and Peter Ryan managed to figure out that if they comment out the tests that have an Active Record object mocked out for new, then Rcov is fine. Say you have an object called User and your controller gets a new instance and does a bunch of stuff to it. Well, you want to test (specify) what happens to that object so you do this:



specify “something important should happen to User” do
  mock_user = mock(“mock_user”) 
  User.should_receive(:new).and_return(mock_user) 
  mock_user.should_receive(:some_method).twice.and_return(“whatever”)
  etc.
end

But Rcov no like this. So to get around this bug I had to open up my object in the spec and overwrite new, like so:



class User
  def self.new
    @@mock
  end

  def self.set_mock mock
    @@mock = mock
  end
end

So now I can make a call to User.set_mock and give it the mock I want new to return. Not quite as elegant as the mocking framework (and it doesn’t check to make sure new is called), but it works. But here’s the weird part: I can do some mocking of new in the spec, just not too much. In the spec that was making rcov bomb, I had 7 places where it read User.should_receive(:new). If I commented out 2, the spec ran fine with rcov. If I left all 7 in, it blew up. Weird, huh?

I need to get a small version of this consistently failing so I can give it to David Chelimsky, my friend and an a RSpec admin. I want to submit the bug to Rcov, but I can’t seem to find where to submit it. I guess I’ll just email whoever’s maintaining it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What's a Good Flog Score?

I've been using Flog to measure the complexity of my Ruby code and I was wondering how others interpret Flog numbers. I'll go first with my opinions: Score of Means 0-10 Awesome 11-20 Good enough 21-40 Might need refactoring 41-60 Possible to justify 61-100 Danger 100-200 Whoop, whoop, whoop 200 + Someone please think of the children (note: these are scores for an individual method) The 20 - 60 range is interesting to me. Sometimes the complexity of what you're doing will justify the score and other times the method is in desperate need of refactoring. The highest Flog score I've seen in the wild was in the 300's. What's you're personal high and what do you think of my rankings? In other news, I've redesigned the look of my blog so if you only see my post through a reader you might want to stop on by, take a look, and tell me what you think.
Read more

SICP Wasn’t Written for You

The number of software luminaries who sing the praises of “ Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs ” (referred to as SICP) is such a long list that you might think only a crazy person would take issue with it. However, to ignore SICP’s problems and continue to blindly recommend it seems just as crazy. SICP was the textbook for MIT’s introductory programming class and was a bit of a departure from other into to computer science textbooks at the time.  Wikipedia sums it up nicely:  “Before SICP, the introductory courses were almost always filled with learning the details of some programming language, while SICP focuses on finding general patterns from specific problems and building software tools that embody each pattern.”  Which sounds awesome, but does essentially say that abstract principles will be introduced before the nuts and bolts of a language.  If you think about that for a minute, you may see where the problems will be. When I was training to be a...
Read more

Point Inside a Polygon in Ruby

Recently my team needed to find out if a point was inside a given polygon and, as usual, we found some code on the internet that did what we wanted. And, as usual, there wasn't much explanation as to what it was doing. Here's the code (after we converted it to Ruby): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 def contains_point? (point) c = false i = -1 j = self .size - 1 while (i += 1 ) < self .size if (( self [i].y <= point.y && point.y < self [j].y) || ( self [j].y <= point.y && point.y < self [i].y)) if (point.x < ( self [j].x - self [i].x) * (point.y - self [i].y) / ( self [j].y - self [i].y) + self [i].x) c = !c end end j = i end return c end end So, you know, it works and I'm grateful to somebody for posting it but we had no idea how it works. So we wrapped 2 tests around it (one where the point is not in the polygon and another where it is...
Read more