When using a validation matcher in the negative, i.e.:
should_not validate_*(...)
as opposed to:
should validate_*(...)
...it's common to receive the following error:
undefined method `attribute_setter' for nil:NilClass
This happens particularly when using a matcher that makes use of
AllowValueMatcher or DisallowValueMatcher internally (which all of the
validation matchers do).
Whenever you make an assertion by using a matcher in the negative as
opposed to the positive, RSpec still calls the `matches?` method for
that matcher; however, the assertion will pass if that returns *false*
as opposed to true. In other words, it just inverts the result.
However, whenever we are using AllowValueMatcher or
DisallowValueMatcher, it doesn't really work to invert the result. like
this. This is because AllowValueMatcher and DisallowValueMatcher,
despite their name, aren't truly opposites of each other.
AllowValueMatcher performs these steps:
1. Set the attribute on the record to some value
2. Run validations on the record
3. Ask whether validations pass or fail
4. If validations fail, store the value that caused the failure along
with the validation errors and return false
5. Otherwise, return true
However, DisallowValueMatcher performs these steps:
1. Set the attribute on the record to some value
2. Run validations on the record
3. Ask whether validations pass or fail
4. If validations *pass*, store the value that caused the failure along
with some metadata and return false
5. Otherwise, return true
This difference in logic is achieved by having AllowValueMatcher
implement `does_not_match?` and then having DisallowValueMatcher use
this for its positive case and use `matches?` for its negative case.
It's easy to see because of this that `does_not_match?` is not the same
as `!matches?` and vice versa.
So a matcher that makes use of these submatchers internally needs to use
their opposite versions whenever that matcher is used in the negative
case. In other words, all of the matchers need a `does_not_match?` which
is like `matches?`, except that all of the logic is inverted, and in all
the cases in which AllowValueMatcher is used, DisallowValueMatcher needs
to be used.
Doing this ensures that when `failure_message` is called on
AllowValueMatcher or DisallowValueMatcher, step 4 in the list of steps
above stores a proper value that can then be referenced in the failure
message for the validation matcher itself.
`allow_value` matcher is, of course, concerned with setting values on a
particular attribute on a particular record, and then checking that the
record is valid after doing so. That comes with a caveat: if the
attribute is overridden in such a way so that the same value going into
the attribute isn't the same value coming out of it, then `allow_value`
will balk -- it'll say, "I can't do that because that changes how I
work."
That's all well and good, but what the attribute intentionally changes
incoming values? ActiveRecord's typecasting behavior, for instance,
would trigger such an exception. What if the developer needs a way to
get around this? This is where `ignoring_interference_by_writer` comes
into play. You can tack it on to the end of the matcher, and you're free
to go on your way.
So, prior to this commit you could already apply it to `allow_value`,
but now in this commit it also works on any other matcher.
But, one little thing: sometimes using this qualifier isn't going to
work. Perhaps you or something else actually *is* overriding the
attribute to change incoming values in a specific way, and perhaps the
value that comes out makes the record fail validation, and there's
nothing you can do about it. So in this case, even if you're using
`ignoring_interference_by_writer`, we want to inform you about what the
attribute is doing -- what the input and output was. And so we do.
This is part of a collection of commits that aim to improve failure
messages across the board, in order to make matchers easier to debug
when something goes wrong.
In this case, we're improving ValidationMatcher, which applies to most
matchers except for numericality.
* Reword the overall failure message so that it includes the failure
message for the last submatcher that failed.
* Extract code to build the description to BuildDescription. This code
now checks to see whether certain qualifiers have been specified and
includes information about them in the description, if present.
* Add a base implementation of `with_message` to ValidationMatcher.
* Add simple booleans to check whether `with_message` or `strict` have
been specified.
The methods failure_message_for_should and failure_message_for_should_not
have been updated to failure_message and failure_message_negated respectively.
Alias to the old methods to remain backwards compatibility with RSpec 2.
It's not entirely clear why these were being swapped to begin with, but
it was causing messages to appear backwards in the presence validation
matcher.
Other matchers using these methods were tested by hand and still output
correct messages -- they too may have been backwards before this fix.
Kapil Sachdev