Repeating RSpec example groups with different arguments

metaprogramming, rspec, ruby

Solution

So (apologies if I'm repeating stuff you already know) but every time you call describe/context rspec creates a new class that is a subclass of the current example group class (which eventually is a subclass of `RSpec::Core::ExampleGroup`) and then uses `module_eval` to evaluate the block in the context of that class. If I run

describe "foo" do
  puts "#{self}; #{self.superclass}"
  describe "behaviour 1" do
    puts "#{self}; #{self.superclass}"
    context "with x" do
      puts "#{self}; #{self.superclass}"
    end
  end
end

then the output is

#<Class:0x007fb772bfbc70>; RSpec::Core::ExampleGroup
#<Class:0x007fb772bfb180>; #<Class:0x007fb772bfbc70>
#<Class:0x007fb772bfa5f0>; #<Class:0x007fb772bfb180>

When you call `it` rspec create an `Example` object and appends it to a class instance variable on self (the current example group). rspec also sticks the current example group in the example's metadata, walking up this tree of example groups is what gives you the full description of the example.

Your `repetitively_describe` method calls `describe`, so at the point that you call `example_group_block.call item` self is indeed the freshly created example group. When the proc gets evaluated, it of course remembers what the value of `self` was when it was called so your calls to `it` are made to the example group that was current when repetitively_describe (easily verifiable by sprinkling some calls to check the value of self throughout your code). Similarly a call to describe adds the example group as a child of the outer example group, not the one created by `repetitively_describe`.

What you of course need to do is call `example_group_block` preserving the correct value of self.

module RepetitivelyDescribe
  def repetitively_describe(*args, &example_group_block)
    options = args.extract_options!
    options.delete(:for).each do |item|
      item_args = args.collect(&:dup) + [options.dup]
      item_args[0] << " [#{item}]"

      describe(*item_args) do
        class_exec(item, &example_group_block)
      end
    end
  end
end

with this change

describe('foo') do
  repetitively_describe "Query API", :for => %w( v1 v2 ) do |version|
    it "responds with JSON"
  end
end.descendant_filtered_examples.collect(&:full_description)

outputs `["foo Query API [v1] responds with JSON", "foo Query API [v2] responds with JSON"]` instead of `["foo responds with JSON", "foo responds with JSON"]` before the change.

Problem

I'm trying to keep my specs clean and DRY, but I have some tests for an API that are identical except for which version of the API is being tested. I could repeat the specs simply using something like this: ``` %w( v1 v2 ).each do |version| describe "Query #{version} API" do it "responds with JSON" # make the call using the version end end end ``` But I'd like something a bit cleaner, and so I've written this method: ``` module RepetitivelyDescribe def repetitively_describe(*args, &example_group_block) options = args.extract_options! options.delete(:for).each do |item| item_args = args.collect(&:dup) + [options.dup] item_args[0] << " [#{item}]" describe(*item_args) do example_group_block.call item end end end end RSpec::Core::ExampleGroup.extend RepetitivelyDescribe ``` And then my test could look more like this: ``` repetitively_describe "Query API", :for => %( v1 v2 ) do |version| it "responds with JSON" # make the call using the version end end ``` I realise this is a little bit of pedantry, but it's one less level of indentation, and if I'm going to be making this call a lot, I'd like to have it cleaner. But of course, it's not working quite as I'd like. The call to `describe` within my `repetitively_describe` doesn't get logged to the RSpec output (when using the documentation format output), though the examples within do get repeated and use the version block argument as expected. Essentially, that level of context is lost (`describe` blocks outside and inside of the `repetitively_describe` block are kept). There's more detailed example code in a gist should it be needed. Any clues on why this isn't quite working right?

Original source