1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
|
# Gotchas
The purpose of this guide is to document potential "gotchas" that contributors
might encounter or should avoid during development of GitLab CE and EE.
## Do not assert against the absolute value of a sequence-generated attribute
Consider the following factory:
```ruby
FactoryBot.define do
factory :label do
sequence(:title) { |n| "label#{n}" }
end
end
```
Consider the following API spec:
```ruby
require 'rails_helper'
describe API::Labels do
it 'creates a first label' do
create(:label)
get api("/projects/#{project.id}/labels", user)
expect(response).to have_http_status(200)
expect(json_response.first['name']).to eq('label1')
end
it 'creates a second label' do
create(:label)
get api("/projects/#{project.id}/labels", user)
expect(response).to have_http_status(200)
expect(json_response.first['name']).to eq('label1')
end
end
```
When run, this spec doesn't do what we might expect:
```sh
1) API::API reproduce sequence issue creates a second label
Failure/Error: expect(json_response.first['name']).to eq('label1')
expected: "label1"
got: "label2"
(compared using ==)
```
That's because FactoryBot sequences are not reseted for each example.
Please remember that sequence-generated values exist only to avoid having to
explicitly set attributes that have a uniqueness constraint when using a factory.
### Solution
If you assert against a sequence-generated attribute's value, you should set it
explicitly. Also, the value you set shouldn't match the sequence pattern.
For instance, using our `:label` factory, writing `create(:label, title: 'foo')`
is ok, but `create(:label, title: 'label1')` is not.
Following is the fixed API spec:
```ruby
require 'rails_helper'
describe API::Labels do
it 'creates a first label' do
create(:label, title: 'foo')
get api("/projects/#{project.id}/labels", user)
expect(response).to have_http_status(200)
expect(json_response.first['name']).to eq('foo')
end
it 'creates a second label' do
create(:label, title: 'bar')
get api("/projects/#{project.id}/labels", user)
expect(response).to have_http_status(200)
expect(json_response.first['name']).to eq('bar')
end
end
```
## Avoid using `allow_any_instance_of` in RSpec
### Why
* Because it is not isolated therefore it might be broken at times.
* Because it doesn't work whenever the method we want to stub was defined
in a prepended module, which is very likely the case in EE. We could see
error like this:
```
1.1) Failure/Error: allow_any_instance_of(ApplicationSetting).to receive_messages(messages)
Using `any_instance` to stub a method (elasticsearch_indexing) that has been defined on a prepended module (EE::ApplicationSetting) is not supported.
```
### Alternative: `expect_next_instance_of`
Instead of writing:
```ruby
# Don't do this:
allow_any_instance_of(Project).to receive(:add_import_job)
```
We could write:
```ruby
# Do this:
expect_next_instance_of(Project) do |project|
expect(project).to receive(:add_import_job)
end
```
If we also want to expect the instance was initialized with some particular
arguments, we could also pass it to `expect_next_instance_of` like:
```ruby
# Do this:
expect_next_instance_of(MergeRequests::RefreshService, project, user) do |refresh_service|
expect(refresh_service).to receive(:execute).with(oldrev, newrev, ref)
end
```
This would expect the following:
```ruby
# Above expects:
refresh_service = MergeRequests::RefreshService.new(project, user)
refresh_service.execute(oldrev, newrev, ref)
```
## Do not `rescue Exception`
See ["Why is it bad style to `rescue Exception => e` in Ruby?"][Exception].
_**Note:** This rule is [enforced automatically by
Rubocop](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/8-4-stable/.rubocop.yml#L911-914)._
[Exception]: http://stackoverflow.com/q/10048173/223897
## Do not use inline JavaScript in views
Using the inline `:javascript` Haml filters comes with a
performance overhead. Using inline JavaScript is not a good way to structure your code and should be avoided.
_**Note:** We've [removed these two filters](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/config/initializers/hamlit.rb)
in an initializer._
### Further reading
- Stack Overflow: [Why you should not write inline JavaScript](http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/86589/why-should-i-avoid-inline-scripting)
|
