where block cannot access or declare variables?

[robfletcher]

Originally reported on Google Code with ID 15

i would expect to be able to do this:

def "my test"() {
  given:
      def a = new Apple()
      def o = new Orange()

  when:
      fruit = f
  then: 
      <something>
  where:
       f << [a, o, a, o, a, o]  
}

But I get MissingPropertyException for a & o.  I also tried declaring a & o in the
where block - same issue.  Declaring them outside the 
scope of the method works but is not ideal.  I ended up unrolling the where into several
when/then blocks.

I see that the documentation for the where block is coming (at light speed :) so maybe
this is as designed.

Thanks

Reported by jacobsonz on 2009-03-12 18:07:08

[robfletcher]

In your concrete example, you could do:

where:
f << [new Apple(), new Orange(), ...]

You could also call out to factory methods like this:

f << [createApple(), createOrange(), ...]

Note that such factory methods may only access @Shared and static fields of the
specification class (but no instance fields).

Is any of these options a good solution for your use case, or would you prefer to do
something like the following?

where:
def a = new Apple()
def b = new Orange()
f << [a, o, a, o, a, o]

Reported by pniederw on 2009-03-12 18:44:27

• Labels added: Type-Enhancement
• Labels removed: Type-Defect

[robfletcher]

Reported by pniederw on 2009-03-12 18:44:43

[robfletcher]

I think the last option is the best because the actual test we were writing was more
like:
  f << [[a, o, a], [a, a, a], [a,o], [o,o,o], [a]]

and it would be silly to keep instantiating.

Reported by jacobsonz on 2009-03-12 22:32:25

[robfletcher]

I understand your point. On the other hand, encouraging the reuse of objects in such
a way goes somewhat 
against the current design, which tries to isolate iterations as much as possible from
each other. For example, 
setup()/cleanup() is called before/after every iteration. And, unless your objects
are heavy-weight, recreating 
them is no significant overhead. I will have to think about this.

Currently, you can achieve your goal as follows:

@Speck
class MySpeck {
  @Shared a = new Apple()
  @Shared o = new Orange()

  def "my test"() {
    // ...

    where:
    f << [[a, o, a], [a, a, a], [a,o], [o,o,o], [a]]
  }
}

The downside is that a and o are in a sense defined in the wrong scope and could be
used by other feature 
methods as well.

Reported by pniederw on 2009-03-12 23:11:19

[robfletcher]

Here is another way:

where:
f << {
  def a = new Apple()
  def o = new Orange()
  [[a, o, a], [a, a, a], [a,o], [o,o,o], [a]]
}()

Reported by pniederw on 2009-03-19 21:12:54

[robfletcher]

That's a nice solution.  I like it.  Thanks!

Reported by jacobsonz on 2009-03-19 23:25:44

[robfletcher]

For now I've decided not to add support for variable definitions in where-blocks, unless
a compelling use-case 
comes along.

Reported by pniederw on 2009-03-30 01:12:29

• Status changed: WontFix

[craffael]

It has happened to me multiple times now that I've run into a similar issue and I would very much appreciate if it would at least be possible to access instance variables of the specification from the where block. Consider for example the following test case (which doesn't compile):

class NotSupportedSpec extends Specification {

  Consumer<Integer> userDeleteListener = Mock()
  def userManager = new UserManager()

  def userId1 = userManager.addUser("romeo", "street 1", "+13212342")
  def userId2 = userManager.addUser("julia", "street 2", "+43212322")

  def setup() {
    userManager.addDeleteListener(userDeleteListener)
  }

  def deleteTest() {
    when:
      userManager.deleteUser(userId)
    then:
      1 * userDeleteListener.accept(_)
      !userManager.userExists(userId)
    
    where:
      userId  | _
      userId1 | _
      userId2 | _
  }

  // more tests that build on userId1, userId2 and userDeleteListener (possibly with where blocks)
}

Note that I cannot annotate userManager with @shared because then I could not register the listener anymore (which is a mock object). I could of course unroll the deleteTest but I don't think that this is satisfactory. Also it would of course be possible to register the listener in the test and annotate the userManager with @shared. But assume that some other methods must be called in setup() after the listener has been registered...

[tjni]

I was just bitten by this as well, so please use as another datapoint. I was roughly trying to do the following:

where:
def sep = File.separator

path              | startsWithPath || result
""                | ""             || true
"a${sep}a${sep}a" | "a${sep}b"     || false
"a${sep}a"        | "a${sep}a"     || true
"a${sep}a${sep}a" | "a${sep}a"     || true
"a${sep}ab"       | "a${sep}a"     || false