Moussenger
Pass variables created in a defmacro definition to the do: block
Hi!
I’m trying to avoid redundant testing (that means, tests that are made in the same way all the time but with slightly different parameters). For example, I have this all the time when I want to test that the call to a controller was ok:
setup do
count = 3
end
test "responds with right schema", %{conn: conn, swagger_schema: schema} do
conn
|> create_authenticated_conn()
|> get(~p"/something", %{a: 1})
|> validate_resp_schema(schema, "Schema")
|> json_response(200)
|> assert_length(count)
end
The things that change are the method call (get, post…), the params, the schema to evaluate, and, optionally if I want to make more assertions (as checking the length of the result array).
So, I thought of creating a macro that simplifies all this work, parameterizing the values that need to be parameterized and also allowing a do: block element to add additional checks. I end up with this:
defmacro test_ok(schema_name, method, url, params \\ nil, do: block) do
quote do
test "responds with right schema", %{conn: conn, swagger_schema: schema} do
response =
conn
|> create_authenticated_conn()
|> unquote(method)(unquote(url), unquote(params))
|> validate_resp_schema(schema, unquote(schema_name))
|> json_response(200)
evaluate_response(response, block)
end
defp evaluate_response(var!(response), block) do
unquote(block)
end
end
end
If I ignore the response part and the block part (evaluate_response method) all works fine. As soon as I want to add to the macro the block part and pass the response to inside the body, I have two problems. First, let’s put an example of code:
test_ok("Schema", :get, ~p"/something") do
assert_length(response, count)
end
Then, the first problem is about the response not being recognized inside the block code. And the other is count not being available neither, although in the way normal test macro, is recognized perfectly.
What is my mistake here?
Most Liked
ziinc
You can use a for..do loop in an exunit test. I highly recommend not over-complicating your tests with a macro unless you absolutely need to.
See this for an example
To answer your question, your block is a compile time ast and can’t be used like an arg at runtime.
Also, you’d be redefining a new private function with the same arity for each macro, so it would not work for more than 1 test.
Popular in Questions
Other popular topics
Categories:
Sub Categories:
Forums
Popular Tags
- #ecto
- #liveview
- #troubleshooting
- #learning-elixir
- #deployment
- #library
- #erlang
- #testing
- #genserver
- #mix
- #absinthe
- #remote-other
- #otp
- #plug
- #how-to-question
- #macros
- #postgres
- #channels
- #elixirconf
- #exunit
- #discussion
- #code-sync
- #javascript
- #podcasts
- #onsite
- #dialyzer
- #docker
- #authentication
- #umbrella
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #ecto-query
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #blog-post
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #ai
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #elixirconf-us
- #advent-of-code
- #distillery
- #processes
- #forms
- #api
- #metaprogramming
- #hex
- #security









