RSpec/ScatteredSetup: false positive

[ololobus]

I am using rails 6 + rspec + rswag and have a following repeating pattern in my request specs:

  path '/clusters/{id}/delete' do
    post 'Delete cluster' do
      tags 'Cluster'
      operationId 'deleteCluster'
      produces 'application/json'
      parameter name: :id, in: :path, type: :integer

      response '200', 'success' do
        before do
          cleanup_operations(existing_cluster)
        end

        schema '$ref' => '#/components/schemas/OperationResult'
        run_test!
      end

      response '409', 'conflict' do
        schema '$ref' => '#/components/schemas/OperationResult'
        run_test!
      end
    end

The idea is that model does not allow concurrent operations, so if there are running ones it will return 409 code. But I also want to test 200 response, so I use a cleanup helper, which forcedly marks all operations as finished. This would be fine, but I have several similar endpoints to test, e.g. start, stop, etc. And for some responses I need before callback and for some of them I do not, thus I cannot declare before on the describe level.

However, RSpec/ScatteredSetup says:

spec/requests/api_controller/clusters_spec.rb:147:9: C: RSpec/ScatteredSetup: Do not define multiple before hooks in the same example group (also defined on lines 182, 215, 377, 444, 485, 546, 604, 635).
        before do ...
        ^^^^^^^^^
spec/requests/api_controller/clusters_spec.rb:182:9: C: RSpec/ScatteredSetup: Do not define multiple before hooks in the same example group (also defined on lines 147, 215, 377, 444, 485, 546, 604, 635).
        before do ...
        ^^^^^^^^^
spec/requests/api_controller/clusters_spec.rb:215:9: C: RSpec/ScatteredSetup: Do not define multiple before hooks in the same example group (also defined on lines 147, 182, 377, 444, 485, 546, 604, 635).
        before do ...
        ^^^^^^^^^
spec/requests/api_controller/clusters_spec.rb:377:9: C: RSpec/ScatteredSetup: Do not define multiple before hooks in the same example group (also defined on lines 147, 182, 215, 444, 485, 546, 604, 635).
        before do ...

and so on.

And I cannot obey, because it will ruin my test logic. Am I missing something?

[pirj]

Your example only has a single before, so it's hard for me to make a picture of the whole structure.

I could suggest configuring example groups to include response. See

rubocop-rspec/config/default.yml

Line 9 in e33f838

Regular:

and https://docs.rubocop.org/rubocop-rspec/usage.html#rspec-dsl-configuration for an idea.
Be extra careful with that, though, as the default settings might be overridden due to a bug.

[ololobus]

The whole structure is more like:

describe 'Cluster' do
  path '/clusters/{id}/start' do
    post 'Start cluster' do
      tags 'Cluster'
      operationId 'startCluster'
      produces 'application/json'
      parameter name: :id, in: :path, type: :integer

      response '200', 'success' do
        before do
          cleanup_operations(existing_cluster)
        end

        schema '$ref' => '#/components/schemas/OperationResult'
        run_test!
      end

      response '409', 'conflict' do
        schema '$ref' => '#/components/schemas/OperationResult'
        run_test!
      end
    end

  path '/clusters/{id}/delete' do
    post 'Delete cluster' do
      tags 'Cluster'
      operationId 'deleteCluster'
      produces 'application/json'
      parameter name: :id, in: :path, type: :integer

      response '200', 'success' do
        before do
          cleanup_operations(existing_cluster)
        end

        schema '$ref' => '#/components/schemas/OperationResult'
        run_test!
      end

      response '409', 'conflict' do
        schema '$ref' => '#/components/schemas/OperationResult'
        run_test!
      end
    end
end

but with several more endpoints.

[pirj]

Can you please try configuring the DSL?
I would suggest copy and pasting the existing one, and adding response to ExampleGroups/Regular.
To test that other cops' config is not broken, add some offence and make sure it's still detected after your change.

[pirj]

In general, we could suggest rspec-swagger to follow this document https://docs.rubocop.org/rubocop-rspec/third_party_rspec_syntax_extensions.html, but the bug prevents from using this without breaking other cops.

[ololobus]

Thanks for the response.

I could suggest configuring example groups to include response.
I would suggest copy and pasting the existing one, and adding response to ExampleGroups/Regular.

If I put response into the ExampleGroups -> Regular it complains about empty example groups:

spec/requests/api_controller/clusters_spec.rb:607:7: C: RSpec/EmptyExampleGroup: Empty example group detected.
      response '200', 'success' do
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
spec/requests/api_controller/clusters_spec.rb:638:7: C: RSpec/EmptyExampleGroup: Empty example group detected.
      response '200', 'success' do

[ololobus]

Gotcha, response is not an example group logically, it is example itself, so what I need is something like that:

RSpec:
  Language:
    ExampleGroups:
      Regular:
        - path
        - post
        - put
        - get
        - delete
    Examples:
      Regular:
        - response

Thanks for pointing me in that direction. I got a bunch of other offences, probably since Rubocop/RSpec started properly analyzing my rspec file, but the initial problem is gone.

[ololobus]

@pirj, so if I am right, what I can do to prevent someone else from hitting the same issue in the future?

Create issue / PR in the https://github.com/rswag/rswag asking to add config/rubocop-rspec.yml file with:

RSpec:
  Language:
    ExampleGroups:
      Regular:
        - path
        - post
        - put
        - get
        - delete
    Examples:
      Regular:
        - response

and follow https://docs.rubocop.org/rubocop-rspec/third_party_rspec_syntax_extensions.html#packaging-configuration-for-rubocop-rspec + https://github.com/palkan/action_policy/pull/138/files ?

[pirj]

response is effectively an example group if it allows for before in it, and it's an RSpec-provided hook.

palkan/action_policy#138 is more representative, where success is an example, but has no body https://github.com/palkan/action_policy/pull/138/files#diff-7a633d5704411354d8906e8b463afd2c72bb4f1f12c7049b0e63e410047db58eR10.

Same here, run_test! is the example https://github.com/rswag/rswag/blob/05e22c3bd7fff53d40cd8104678dab73d0b7aff7/rswag-specs/lib/rswag/specs/example_group_helpers.rb#L88
It can be treated as it_behaves_like (Includes/Examples in the configuration).

Create issue / PR in the https://github.com/rswag/rswag

Right.
I'd suggest mentioning the before mentioned bug, as this may ruin other cops.

[pirj]

@ololobus Any update?

[ololobus]

Thanks for your previous comment, now I use:

RSpec:
  Language:
    ExampleGroups:
      Regular:
        - path
        - post
        - put
        - get
        - delete
        - response
    Examples:
      Regular:
        - run_test!

so far so good. I only receive reasonable warnings.

I have not prepared a PR yet, but I found a closed issue rswag/rswag#138. And it seems that they are not really willing to accept something like that. Although I want to try anyway

[pirj]

I went ahead and going to fix the bug I've mentioned earlier in rubocop/rubocop#9952

If rswag doesn't accept your patch, I suggest you creating a rubocop-rspec-swag gem with just the config/default.yml in it, to act as a glue between rubocop-rspec cops and rswag code.

Do you think there's anything actionable left, or we can close this ticket, @ololobus ?

[ololobus]

@pirj, yeah, I think so. Thanks for responses, that helped me a lot. I'm closing this one

[Krupskis]

@ololobus did you start anything with the rubocop-rspec-swag gem that @pirj suggested?

[ololobus]

@Krupskis, not yet

[Krupskis]

@ololobus Do you plan to do so? I would like to contribute

[ololobus]

Yeah, I'm going to do it, but if you are willing to do it right now, then go ahead, sure 👍

[Krupskis]

@ololobus I would like to do it together, as I am a beginner, especially at gems, so having some guidance would be pretty cool.