Introduce support for hanami generate part

[jodosha]

Feature

Support RSpec generation for hanami generate part (see hanami/cli#117)

App

$ bundle exec hanami generate part user
# ...
Created spec/views/parts/user_spec.rb

# frozen_string_literal: true

RSpec.describe Bookshelf::Views::Parts::User do
  it "works" do
    expect(subject).to be_kind_of(described_class)
  end
end

Slice

$ bundle exec hanami generate part user --slice=admin
# ...
Created spec/slices/admin/views/parts/user_spec.rb

# frozen_string_literal: true

RSpec.describe Admin::Views::Parts::User do
  it "works" do
    expect(subject).to be_kind_of(described_class)
  end
end

---

Ref hanami/cli#117
Ref hanami/cli#113

[timriley]

Functionality-wise, this all looks good!

Though I wonder if there might be a slightly more instructive shape we could give the generated spec file.

There's one real issue with the current spec file: it doesn't really reflect the shape this file will need to take once the tests become real. At that stage, we'll need to be initialising the part manually and passing a value in.

So could we possibly get a little bit closer with our default files? Something like this?

# frozen_string_literal: true

RSpec.describe Bookshelf::Views::Parts::User do

  # TODO: detect if we're on a modern enough ruby, then make this `(value:)`, which is so much nicer
  subject(:part) { described_class.new(value: value) }

  let(:value) {
    # Replace this with your domain object
    Object.new
  }

  it "works" do
    expect(subject).to be_kind_of(described_class)
  end
end

With this as the default spec file, the user:

• Knows they need to pass a value to their part
• Has the code already set up to do so
• Just needs to replace the code inside let(:value)
• And after that, everything is good to go :)

What do you think?

[jodosha]

@timriley A few considerations 👇 .

value is needed parts

Yes, we must introduce value in specs otherwise, they crash.

Failures:

  1) Bookshelf::Views::Parts::Author works
     Failure/Error: expect(subject).to be_kind_of(described_class)

     ArgumentError:
       missing keyword: :value

value is requested for base parts

The problem is that the base part is expecting value: as well.

The base part is defined as MyApp::Part < Hanami::View::Part.

Failures:

  1) Bookshelf::Views::Part works
     Failure/Error: expect(subject).to be_kind_of(described_class)

     ArgumentError:
       missing keyword: :value

⚠️ We need to fix this problem in hanami/view.

Proposal for the generated spec

# frozen_string_literal: true

RSpec.describe Bookshelf::Views::Parts::Author do
  subject { described_class.new(value:) }
  let(:value) { double("author") }

  it "works" do
    expect(subject).to be_kind_of(described_class)
  end
end

Notes:

1. subject vs subject(:part): it's subject for consistency with the action spec generator.
2. let(:value) it uses double("author") (instead Object.new) to use RSpec way to use doubles. Users can also leverage RSpec verified doubles for extra safety.

[jodosha]

@timriley More considerations on base part and value.

Given the following base part, located at app/views/part.rb:

# auto_register: false
# frozen_string_literal: true

module Bookshelf
  module Views
    class Part < Hanami::View::Part
      def inspekt
        helper.html.tag(:code, value.inspect)
      end
    end
  end
end

How do I unit-test this?
Here's a hypothetical code at spec/views/part_spec.rb:

# frozen_string_literal: true

RSpec.describe Bookshelf::Views::Part do
  subject { described_class.new(value:) }

  describe "#inspekt" do
    let(:value) { Client.new }

    it "works" do
      expect(subject.inspekt).to eq(%(<code>#{value.inspect}</code>))
    end
  end
end

---

With that concrete example, how can we generate a useful, ready-to-go spec file for the base part?
Maybe we can generate a spec, similar to the one that we generate for parts:

# frozen_string_literal: true

RSpec.describe Bookshelf::Views::Part do
  subject { described_class.new(value:) }
  let(:value) { double("obj") }

  it "works" do
    expect(subject).to be_kind_of(described_class)
  end
end

[timriley]

Your Proposal for the generated spec is perfect, @jodosha!

Also, your proposal just above for the base part's spec looks great to me too!

Two thumbs up!

[timriley]

🚀