Skip to main content

Testing React components with Jasmine in Rails with the react-rails gem

So in my latest project, we are using Ruby on Rails and the react-rails gem to implement our React components.

While react-rails is fine for the most part (and for simple components), there is a severe limitation in that you cannot use ES6 modules (i.e. using the import and export classes) because of the way asset-pipeline works.

Asset-pipeline precompiles all your JS into one mega JS file and therefore doesn't allow you to call individual JavaScript components in separate files (because they don't pushed to the server). This is a severe problem which I hope gets fixed soon, but in the meantime don't hold your breath.

There are workarounds using Browserify and/or Webpack, but they are messy (Google them for more info).

In any case, react-rails does allow simple React components in Rails apps and it mounts them all in the window/global namespace, so you can use a good 75% of React within a Rails application.

So now, we come to testing...

Facebook uses a testing framework called Jest (https://facebook.github.io/jest/docs/tutorial-react.html). It looks pretty good, but unfortunately does require the use of the import/export syntax...

But hey, React components are just JavaScript right? That means you can test them with any library (like Jasmine https://github.com/jasmine/jasmine-gem). Right?

Well, they are JavaScript, but they are also kind of closed off and it can be hard to actually unit test and mock them. I created a React component called DailyQuiz and for testing I tried to simply instantiate it normally.

var dailyQuiz = new DailyQuiz();

I was then able to see all the attributes on dailyQuiz in the console as if it were a regular JS object.

Until that is, I ran into setState in the code. Unfortunately, it gave me some guff about

Warning: setState(...): Can only update a mounted or mounting component. This usually means you called setState() on an unmounted component. This is a no-op. Please check the code for the  component.

So, basically, this means we can't treat a React component as a plain JS object because there is a lot happening behind the scenes. In a way this makes sense because React does a lot of calculations before outputting to the DOM, so these restrictions are probably needed.

So rather than trying to fake the whole mounting of the component, I decided it would be better to actually mount it. I used jasmine-jquery (https://github.com/travisjeffery/jasmine-jquery-rails) to help me manipulate the DOM with jasmine.

I will show you the code snippet and then talk you through it.
  
  beforeEach(function() {
    deferred = new jQuery.Deferred();
    spyOn($, 'ajax').and.returnValue(deferred);
    setFixtures('[div id="react-fixture"]
test[/div]
');

    dailyQuiz = ReactDOM.render(
      React.createElement(DailyQuiz, {
        url: "/",
        saveUrl: "/save"
      }),
      document.getElementById('react-fixture')
    );

    deferred.resolve(data);
  });

* note for this example I had to replace the < and > with [ and ] for rendering purposes... Blogger is giving me some hassle...

So basically I am using $.ajax with the promise syntax and then spying on it so I can intercept the ajax call in my spec. I then use jasmine-jquery's setFixtures to create a place to mount the component, I mount the component with plain JS (not JSX) and the resolve the AJAX call.

From there, you can actually call dailyQuiz and it will reflect the state of the component.

The downside of this approach is that the data you use to populate your component has to actually work (you can't just stub any old data through it). There may be a way to spy on the subcomponents, but I haven't found a way yet.

The benefits are that you can test the actual state of the actual component. It's just not a headless component (it needs to be mounted). You can also use jasmine-jquery to test the DOM meets expectations.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Freezing Gems

What is a gem and why would you want to freeze it? In Ruby, there are times when you want to access pieces of functionality that other people of written (3rd party libraries) and you normally have 2 options. You can install a plug in or install a gem. Normally the method you use is determined by which ever is made available by the author. Gems are installed on the host machine and are pretty handy when you want to run things in the command line or else across lots of projects, but their downside is that if you use a gem in a Rails project there is no automatic publishing mechanism when you deploy your site. You will need to log onto the remote host machine and install the gem manually. Plugins are specific to Rails and are similar to gems in that they are also 3rd party libraries. However they are associated with your Rails project as opposed to your machine so they will get posted to the server on a regular deploy. Freezing a gem is the process of transforming a gem into a plug in

Unit/Functional Testing RubyAMF

One of my current projects is using RubyAMF to communicate with Flash (http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubyamf/). On the whole this is really nice because it allows you to transfer Ruby objects directly to ActionScript ones (as opposed to translating the object into XML, sending the XML and then recreating the object in ActionScript). However, Rails does not provide a built in transport mechanism for AMF, so we cannot run functional testing directly on the data call (as we could for an XML or HTML transport layer). This is a show stopper for a lot of people (Rails w/o Unit testing = a big mess of trouble when something goes wrong). We can though serve both the HTML and the AMF formats depending on the request format. This means that we can test the object instantiation logic and make sure there are no errors in the controllers (though we cannot check the actual format of the data being served). In the controller, instead of rendering AMF alone, do the following respond_to do |format|

Responsive Web Design

I wanted to go over Responsive Web Design using CSS. In the old days of web development, we had to code to common screen sizes (i.e. 800 X 600, 1024 X 768) and we patiently waited for people to upgrade their computers to have a decent amount of screen real estate so we could design things the way we really wanted. We also took on semi stretchy web layouts etc to expand and contract appropriately. Then about 2 or 3 years ago, Apple released this little device called an iPhone with a 320 X 480 resolution which took the world by storm and suddenly a lot of people were viewing your website on a tiny screen again... Anyways, as it can be difficult to design a site which looks good on 320 X 480 AND 1680 X 1050, we need to come up with some kind of solution. One way is to sniff the client and then use an appropriate stylesheet, but then you are mixing CSS with either JavaScript or server side programming and also potentially maintaining a list of appropriate clients and stylesheets. Also,