rspec-rails

RSpec for Rails 6+

5,151

1,033

5,151

View on GitHub

Top Related Projects

shoulda-matchers

3,501

Simple one-liner tests for common Rails functionality

capybara

10,009

Acceptance test framework for web applications

cucumber-rails

1,015

Rails Generators for Cucumber with special support for Capybara and DatabaseCleaner

factory_bot

7,909

A library for setting up Ruby objects as test data.

faker

11,223

A library for generating fake data such as names, addresses, and phone numbers.

Quick Overview

RSpec-Rails is a testing framework for Ruby on Rails applications. It integrates RSpec, a popular behavior-driven development (BDD) tool for Ruby, with the Rails framework, providing a comprehensive suite of testing tools and helpers specifically designed for Rails projects.

Pros

Seamless integration with Rails, offering Rails-specific matchers and helpers
Encourages readable and expressive test code through its descriptive syntax
Provides a wide range of testing tools, including mocks, stubs, and expectations
Supports different types of tests: unit, integration, and system tests

Cons

Steeper learning curve compared to Rails' built-in testing framework (Minitest)
Can be slower than Minitest for large test suites
Some developers find the DSL too "magical" or abstract
Occasional compatibility issues with certain Rails versions or gems

Code Examples

Testing a model:

RSpec.describe User, type: :model do
  it "is valid with valid attributes" do
    user = User.new(name: "John Doe", email: "john@example.com")
    expect(user).to be_valid
  end

  it "is not valid without a name" do
    user = User.new(email: "john@example.com")
    expect(user).to_not be_valid
  end
end

Testing a controller:

RSpec.describe UsersController, type: :controller do
  describe "GET #index" do
    it "returns a success response" do
      get :index
      expect(response).to be_successful
    end
  end
end

Testing a feature with Capybara:

RSpec.feature "User signs up", type: :feature do
  scenario "with valid email and password" do
    visit new_user_registration_path
    fill_in "Email", with: "user@example.com"
    fill_in "Password", with: "password"
    fill_in "Password confirmation", with: "password"
    click_button "Sign up"
    expect(page).to have_text("Welcome! You have signed up successfully.")
  end
end

Getting Started

To get started with RSpec-Rails, add it to your Gemfile:

group :development, :test do
  gem 'rspec-rails', '~> 5.0'
end

Then, run the following commands:

bundle install
rails generate rspec:install

This will install RSpec and generate the necessary configuration files. You can now start writing tests in the spec directory of your Rails application.

Competitor Comparisons

shoulda-matchers

3,501

Simple one-liner tests for common Rails functionality

Pros of shoulda-matchers

Provides concise, one-liner matchers for common Rails validations and associations
Offers a more readable and expressive syntax for testing model attributes
Integrates seamlessly with RSpec and other testing frameworks

Cons of shoulda-matchers

Limited to model testing, while rspec-rails covers a broader range of Rails components
May require additional setup and configuration compared to rspec-rails
Less frequently updated and maintained compared to rspec-rails

Code Comparison

rspec-rails:

RSpec.describe User, type: :model do
  it { should validate_presence_of(:name) }
  it { should validate_uniqueness_of(:email) }
  it { should have_many(:posts) }
end

shoulda-matchers:

RSpec.describe User, type: :model do
  it { is_expected.to validate_presence_of(:name) }
  it { is_expected.to validate_uniqueness_of(:email) }
  it { is_expected.to have_many(:posts) }
end

Both examples demonstrate similar functionality, but shoulda-matchers provides a more readable syntax with is_expected.to instead of should. The shoulda-matchers syntax is often considered more expressive and easier to understand, especially for developers new to testing.

While rspec-rails offers a comprehensive testing solution for Rails applications, shoulda-matchers excels in providing concise and readable matchers for model testing. The choice between the two depends on the specific testing needs and preferences of the development team.

capybara

10,009

Acceptance test framework for web applications

Pros of Capybara

Provides a high-level API for simulating user interactions, making it easier to write expressive and readable tests
Supports multiple drivers (e.g., Selenium, Rack::Test) allowing for flexibility in testing different types of applications
Offers built-in waiting mechanisms for asynchronous operations, reducing test flakiness

Cons of Capybara

Limited to testing web applications, while RSpec-Rails can be used for various types of tests (unit, integration, etc.)
Steeper learning curve for developers new to acceptance testing frameworks
May require additional setup and configuration compared to RSpec-Rails, especially when using different drivers

Code Comparison

RSpec-Rails:

describe "User authentication" do
  it "logs in a user" do
    user = create(:user)
    visit login_path
    fill_in "Email", with: user.email
    fill_in "Password", with: user.password
    click_button "Log in"
    expect(page).to have_content("Welcome back!")
  end
end

Capybara:

feature "User authentication" do
  scenario "logs in a user" do
    user = create(:user)
    visit login_path
    fill_in "Email", with: user.email
    fill_in "Password", with: user.password
    click_button "Log in"
    expect(page).to have_content("Welcome back!")
  end
end

The code examples are similar, but Capybara uses more descriptive language (feature/scenario) for acceptance testing, while RSpec-Rails uses its standard describe/it syntax.

cucumber-rails

1,015

Rails Generators for Cucumber with special support for Capybara and DatabaseCleaner

Pros of cucumber-rails

More readable for non-technical stakeholders, using plain English descriptions
Encourages behavior-driven development (BDD) and collaboration between developers and business analysts
Supports a wide range of programming languages beyond Ruby

Cons of cucumber-rails

Steeper learning curve due to additional syntax and structure
Can be slower to execute compared to RSpec tests
Requires more setup and maintenance for feature files and step definitions

Code Comparison

cucumber-rails:

Feature: User authentication
  Scenario: Successful login
    Given I am on the login page
    When I enter valid credentials
    Then I should be logged in

rspec-rails:

RSpec.describe "User authentication" do
  it "allows successful login" do
    visit login_path
    fill_in "Username", with: "user@example.com"
    fill_in "Password", with: "password"
    click_button "Log In"
    expect(page).to have_content("Welcome back!")
  end
end

Both frameworks provide powerful testing capabilities for Rails applications. cucumber-rails excels in readability and collaboration, while rspec-rails offers a more concise and faster testing experience. The choice between them often depends on project requirements and team preferences.

factory_bot

7,909

A library for setting up Ruby objects as test data.

Pros of Factory Bot

Focused on creating test data, making it easier to set up complex object graphs
More flexible and expressive syntax for defining factories
Supports traits and callbacks for advanced data creation scenarios

Cons of Factory Bot

Limited to data creation, while RSpec Rails provides a full testing framework
Steeper learning curve for beginners compared to RSpec's more intuitive syntax
May encourage overuse of factories, potentially slowing down test suites

Code Comparison

Factory Bot:

FactoryBot.define do
  factory :user do
    name { "John Doe" }
    email { "john@example.com" }
    trait :admin do
      admin { true }
    end
  end
end

RSpec Rails:

RSpec.describe User, type: :model do
  it "is valid with valid attributes" do
    user = User.new(name: "John Doe", email: "john@example.com")
    expect(user).to be_valid
  end
end

Factory Bot excels at creating test data with a clean, declarative syntax, while RSpec Rails provides a comprehensive testing framework with a focus on behavior description. Factory Bot is often used in conjunction with RSpec Rails to enhance test data creation, combining the strengths of both libraries for more effective testing in Ruby on Rails applications.

faker

11,223

A library for generating fake data such as names, addresses, and phone numbers.

Pros of Faker

Lightweight and focused on generating fake data
Easier to integrate into non-Rails projects
Extensive library of data types and locales

Cons of Faker

Limited to data generation, not a full testing framework
Less integrated with Rails ecosystem
Requires additional setup for use in testing scenarios

Code Comparison

RSpec-Rails example:

RSpec.describe User, type: :model do
  it "is valid with valid attributes" do
    user = User.new(name: "John Doe", email: "john@example.com")
    expect(user).to be_valid
  end
end

Faker example:

require 'faker'

name = Faker::Name.name
email = Faker::Internet.email
user = User.new(name: name, email: email)

Summary

RSpec-Rails is a comprehensive testing framework for Rails applications, offering a wide range of testing capabilities. Faker, on the other hand, is a library specifically designed for generating fake data, which can be used in various contexts, including testing.

While RSpec-Rails provides a complete testing solution for Rails projects, Faker excels in creating realistic sample data quickly and easily. Faker can be used alongside RSpec-Rails or other testing frameworks to enhance test data generation.

The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of your project. For full Rails application testing, RSpec-Rails is more suitable. For generating fake data in any Ruby project, Faker is the go-to solution.

Convert designs to code with AI

Introducing Visual Copilot: A new AI model to turn Figma designs to high quality code using your components.

Try Visual Copilot

README

rspec-rails

rspec-rails brings the RSpec testing framework to Ruby on Rails as a drop-in alternative to its default testing framework, Minitest.

In RSpec, tests are not just scripts that verify your application code. Theyâre also specifications (or specs, for short): detailed explanations of how the application is supposed to behave, expressed in plain English.

According to RSpec Rails new versioning strategy use:

rspec-rails 7.x for Rails 7.x.
rspec-rails 6.x for Rails 6.1, 7.0 or 7.1.
rspec-rails 5.x for Rails 5.2 or 6.x.
rspec-rails 4.x for Rails from 5.x or 6.x.
rspec-rails 3.x for Rails earlier than 5.0.
rspec-rails 1.x for Rails 2.x.

Installation

IMPORTANT This README / branch refers to the current development build. See the 7-0-maintenance branch on Github if you want or require the latest stable release.

Add rspec-rails to both the :development and :test groups of your appâs Gemfile:

# Run against this stable release
group :development, :test do
  gem 'rspec-rails', '~> 7.0.0'
end

# Or, run against the main branch
# (requires main-branch versions of all related RSpec libraries)
group :development, :test do
  %w[rspec-core rspec-expectations rspec-mocks rspec-rails rspec-support].each do |lib|
    gem lib, git: "https://github.com/rspec/#{lib}.git", branch: 'main'
  end
end

(Adding it to the :development group is not strictly necessary, but without it, generators and rake tasks must be preceded by RAILS_ENV=test.)

Then, in your project directory:

# Download and install
$ bundle install

# Generate boilerplate configuration files
# (check the comments in each generated file for more information)
$ rails generate rspec:install
      create  .rspec
      create  spec
      create  spec/spec_helper.rb
      create  spec/rails_helper.rb

Upgrading

If your project is already using an older version of rspec-rails, upgrade to the latest version with:

$ bundle update rspec-rails

RSpec follows semantic versioning, which means that âmajor versionâ upgrades (e.g., 2.x â 3.x) come with breaking changes. If youâre upgrading from version 2.x or below, read the rspec-rails upgrade notes to find out what to watch out for.

Be sure to check the general RSpec upgrade notes as well.

Usage

Creating boilerplate specs with `rails generate`

# RSpec hooks into built-in generators
$ rails generate model user
      invoke  active_record
      create    db/migrate/20181017040312_create_users.rb
      create    app/models/user.rb
      invoke    rspec
      create      spec/models/user_spec.rb

# RSpec also provides its own spec file generators
$ rails generate rspec:model user
      create  spec/models/user_spec.rb

# List all RSpec generators
$ rails generate --help | grep rspec

Running specs

# Default: Run all spec files (i.e., those matching spec/**/*_spec.rb)
$ bundle exec rspec

# Run all spec files in a single directory (recursively)
$ bundle exec rspec spec/models

# Run a single spec file
$ bundle exec rspec spec/controllers/accounts_controller_spec.rb

# Run a single example from a spec file (by line number)
$ bundle exec rspec spec/controllers/accounts_controller_spec.rb:8

# See all options for running specs
$ bundle exec rspec --help

Optional: If bundle exec rspec is too verbose for you, you can generate a binstub at bin/rspec and use that instead:

$ bundle binstubs rspec-core

RSpec DSL Basics (or, how do I write a spec?)

In RSpec, application behavior is described first in (almost) plain English, then again in test code, like so:

RSpec.describe 'Post' do           #
  context 'before publication' do  # (almost) plain English
    it 'cannot have comments' do   #
      expect { Post.create.comments.create! }.to raise_error(ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid)  # test code
    end
  end
end

Running rspec will execute this test code, and then use the plain-English descriptions to generate a report of where the application conforms to (or fails to meet) the spec:

$ rspec --format documentation spec/models/post_spec.rb

Post
  before publication
    cannot have comments

Failures:

  1) Post before publication cannot have comments
     Failure/Error: expect { Post.create.comments.create! }.to raise_error(ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid)
       expected ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid but nothing was raised
     # ./spec/models/post.rb:4:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>'

Finished in 0.00527 seconds (files took 0.29657 seconds to load)
1 example, 1 failure

Failed examples:

rspec ./spec/models/post_spec.rb:3 # Post before publication cannot have comments

For an in-depth look at the RSpec DSL, including lots of examples, read the official Cucumber documentation for RSpec Core.

Helpful Rails Matchers

In RSpec, assertions are called expectations, and every expectation is built around a matcher. When you expect(a).to eq(b), youâre using the eq matcher.

In addition to the matchers that come standard in RSpec, here are some extras that make it easier to test the various parts of a Rails system:

RSpec matcher	Delegates to	Available in	Notes
`be_a_new`		all	primarily intended for controller specs
`render_template`	`assert_template`	request / controller / view	use with `expect(response).to`
`redirect_to`	`assert_redirect`	request / controller	use with `expect(response).to`
`route_to`	`assert_recognizes`	routing / controller	use with `expect(...).to route_to`
`be_routable`		routing / controller	use with `expect(...).not_to be_routable`
`have_http_status`		request / controller / feature
`match_array`		all	for comparing arrays of ActiveRecord objects
`have_been_enqueued`		all	requires config: `ActiveJob::Base.queue_adapter = :test`
`have_enqueued_job`		all	requires config: `ActiveJob::Base.queue_adapter = :test`

Follow the links above for examples of how each matcher is used.

What else does RSpec Rails add?

For a comprehensive look at RSpec Railsâ features, read the official Cucumber documentation.

What tests should I write?

RSpec Rails defines ten different types of specs for testing different parts of a typical Rails application. Each one inherits from one of Railsâ built-in TestCase classes, meaning the helper methods provided by default in Rails tests are available in RSpec, as well.

Spec type	Corresponding Rails test class
model
controller	`ActionController::TestCase`
mailer	`ActionMailer::TestCase`
job
view	`ActionView::TestCase`
routing
helper	`ActionView::TestCase`
request	`ActionDispatch::IntegrationTest`
feature
system	`ActionDispatch::SystemTestCase`

Follow the links above to see examples of each spec type, or for official Rails API documentation on the given TestCase class.

Note: This is not a checklist.

Ask a hundred developers how to test an application, and youâll get a hundred different answers.

RSpec Rails provides thoughtfully selected features to encourage good testing practices, but thereâs no ârightâ way to do it. Ultimately, itâs up to you to decide how your test suite will be composed.

When creating a spec file, assign it a type in the top-level describe block, like so:

# spec/models/user_spec.rb

RSpec.describe User, type: :model do
...

System specs, feature specs, request specsâwhatâs the difference?

RSpec Rails provides some end-to-end (entire application) testing capability to specify the interaction with the client.

System specs

Also called acceptance tests, browser tests, or end-to-end tests, system specs test the application from the perspective of a human client. The test code walks through a userâs browser interactions,

visit '/login'
fill_in 'Name', with: 'jdoe'

and the expectations revolve around page content.

expect(page).to have_text('Welcome')

Because system specs are a wrapper around Railsâ built-in SystemTestCase, theyâre only available on Rails 5.1+. (Feature specs serve the same purpose, but without this dependency.)

Feature specs

Before Rails introduced system testing facilities, feature specs were the only spec type for end-to-end testing. While the RSpec team now officially recommends system specs instead, feature specs are still fully supported, look basically identical, and work on older versions of Rails.

On the other hand, feature specs require non-trivial configuration to get some important features working, like JavaScript testing or making sure each test runs with a fresh DB state. With system specs, this configuration is provided out-of-the-box.

Like system specs, feature specs require the Capybara gem. Rails 5.1+ includes it by default as part of system tests, but if you donât have the luxury of upgrading, be sure to add it to the :test group of your Gemfile first:

group :test do
  gem "capybara"
end

Request specs

Request specs are for testing the application from the perspective of a machine client. They begin with an HTTP request and end with the HTTP response, so theyâre faster than feature specs, but do not examine your appâs UI or JavaScript.

Request specs provide a high-level alternative to controller specs. In fact, as of RSpec 3.5, both the Rails and RSpec teams discourage directly testing controllers in favor of functional tests like request specs.

When writing them, try to answer the question, âFor a given HTTP request (verb + path + parameters), what HTTP response should the application return?â

Contributing

Once youâve cloned the repo and set up the environment, you can run the specs and Cucumber features, or submit a pull request.

Top Related Projects

Convert designs to code with AI

Introducing Visual Copilot: A new AI model to turn Figma designs to high quality code using your components.

Try Visual Copilot

Top Related Projects

Quick Overview

Pros

Cons

Code Examples

Getting Started

Competitor Comparisons

Pros of shoulda-matchers

Cons of shoulda-matchers

Code Comparison

Pros of Capybara

Cons of Capybara

Code Comparison

Pros of cucumber-rails

Cons of cucumber-rails

Code Comparison

Pros of Factory Bot

Cons of Factory Bot

Code Comparison

Pros of Faker

Cons of Faker

Code Comparison

Summary

Convert designs to code with AI

README

rspec-rails

Installation

Upgrading

Usage

Creating boilerplate specs with rails generate

Running specs

RSpec DSL Basics (or, how do I write a spec?)

Helpful Rails Matchers

What else does RSpec Rails add?

What tests should I write?

System specs, feature specs, request specsâwhatâs the difference?

System specs

Feature specs

Request specs

Contributing

See Also

RSpec base libraries

Recommended third-party extensions

Top Related Projects

Convert designs to code with AI

Creating boilerplate specs with `rails generate`

System specs, feature specs, request specsâwhatâs the difference?