If you care what arguments are received, then use the existing tools available to you. expect(obj).to receive(:method_name).with("data").receive(:method_two).with("data2").and_return("result"). yield puts 'Bye!' 3): Test Doubles Test Doubles in RSpec have been a little difficult to wrap my head around. In the case of eq, RSpec uses the == operator (read more about Ruby operators). I've noticed that if you've set an expectation/allowance before you created a chain, and that expectation/allowance returns nil you get a stubbing method on nil warning. to receive (:decision?). It looks like this file is a duplicate of receive_message_chain.rb and not even used. RSpec.describe "Using #with to constrain responses" do specify "its response depends on the arguments" do dbl = double # Set a default for any unmatched args allow(dbl).to receive(:foo).and_return(:default) allow(dbl).to receive(:foo).with(1).and_return(1) allow(dbl).to receive(:foo).with(2).and_return(2) expect(dbl.foo(0)).to eq(:default) expect(dbl.foo(1)).to eq(1) expect(dbl.foo(2)).to eq(2) end end A message expectation constrained by with undecided end end I think this approach is fine in this simple case. Good job :) . ruby-on-rails,ruby-on-rails-4,rspec3,mongoid4. @myronmarston I had a crack at reconciling this with 2-99 and failed to merge it properly. Sidekiq::Queue.new(queue_name).any? @myronmarston that's a really good call. allow (book). We’ll occasionally send you account related emails. Also, there are probably some piping libraries that could benefit from this as well, think: dataset.filter("whatever").order.first(20). Reading the code, it looks like this line will get hit with a spec like this: @myronmarston So all the specs now run with only the expect syntax and they're passing without changing this. Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported. stub chain does not work with and_call_original: https://gist.github.com/samphippen/7458414. Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews. Would be good to start with a failing test, then fix it to not call that anymore. and_return (" The RSpec Book ") allow (book). This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved. For example, for a particular spec run if you want your fast unit specs to run before your slow acceptance specs, you can run RSpec like so: $ rspec spec/unit spec/acceptance --order defined The --order defined bit is only needed if … By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and When doing unit testing of Puppet code with rspec, attributes of a resource will be kept separate from ordering metaparameters for a resource. This is an awful small class to get its own file. Say I want to test a single-fire object like MessageClass.new("data").send_to("username"). twice # The only option normally is to be more verbose. I find the simplicity and consistency of having a method accept only one type of argument preferable to having a method accept multiple different types of arguments -- so having receive for a symbol and receive_messages for a hash appeals to me. 1 RSpec(Pt. To give an example, suppose I have … Given you already have the code in place for it, it'd be good to "break" it somehow to confirm the tests you add for this can properly fail with a useful failure message. While I often favor that approach in testing applications, within RSpec I prefer to do full integration tests of the features as users use them. In practice, this may be more useful for testing code used in a background job, for example, than in a web interface or API response. adult? I don't see any specs showing that working. 2020 How to get a spec test passing for model with enum field type - Mongoid. It would be more consistent to get it to work or to disallow it with expect as well. 2): Hooks, Subject, Shared Examples 3 RSpec(Pt. This lets you define code that should be executed before and after the example. In your example, a is not test double. I think you already have code to prevent this but specs to document the behavior would be good. I think you're missing and_call_original. I worked it out on a second look. Jeff was sleeping Murray and Jeff: Murray played guitar Anthony: Greg was dreaming of the Big Red Car. RSpec Mocks . RuboCop, a static code analyzer (linter) and formatter, has a rubocop-rspec extension, provides a way to enforce the rules outlined in this guide. Of course you can use spy on the MessageClass and stub the new method, and then run an expect on the spy. to your account, First pass. method call, the processor will add "processed" string to the end of the data. A mock is an object used for testing. end self. With a stub, if the message might be received with other args as well, you should stub a default value first, and then stub or mock the same message using with to constrain to specific arguments. Developer không chỉ code mà cần phải viết test đi kèm theo với Code. I love how you always come up with this stuff. once. They are … I can't think of a way that having the :should syntax enabled would break it, but there are many branches and code paths to the implementation of RSpec::Mocks::StubChain and it would give me greater confidence that it works for all of them if :should is disabled for all the specs in this file. The object returned by receive supports the same fluent interface that should_receive and stub have always supported, allowing you to constrain the arguments or number of times, and configure how the … I would like it to have (OST) removed. The reason we now support expect(...).to receive_message_chain is because the new allow vs expect + a matcher approach made it fall out naturally. Instead, what do you think about adding a invoke_without_changing_received_count method to MessageExpectation? just a git fail plus getting a little confused whilst looking at another matcher and testing an assumption. I think we'll just leave it for 3.0.0? to receive (:<<). with ( all_of ( 'Hello' , 'My name is Phil' ) ) . Well that was fun. allow(ledger).to receive(:record) With this double in place, RSpec checks that the real Ledger class (if it’s loaded) actually responds to the record message with the same signature. Do you like it better or worse? Developer không chỉ code mà cần phải viết test đi kèm theo với Code. This is used when a method requires an argument but doesn’t interact with it in a specific test. We have a lot of other stuff to work on for RSpec 3 and I'm not convinced that adding with is a good idea. Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues. Could I hack that together myself somehow? Dismiss Join GitHub today. A message expectation will fail if the message is received with different arguments. One other thing I forgot to mention: the negative case (e.g. An example is basically a test or a test case. Woohoo this is coming along nicely! 1 RSpec(Pt. The object returned by receive supports the same fluent interface that should_receive and stub have always supported, allowing you to constrain the arguments or number of times, and configure how the … Ignores Rails and Aruba type metadata by default. But method process still requires us to pass a validator. @myronmarston couldn't merge this into 2-99. new … I'll squash it down to one commit, and then cherry pick it across to 2-99 assuming that's sufficiently easy. allowed message will only be used when the arguments match. Or, if you do want to test that it works with :should enabled, that's fine -- just flip it so that there's only one test where it is enabled and all the rest where is is disabled. I particularly like how chain_on got pushed into one place. Cucumber Limited. Trong ngôn ngữ Ruby, RSpec là một trong những testing framework được sử dụng phổ biến nhất. Can this be moved into a constant? Việc viết test khi coding giúp ích rất nhiều cho developer trong việc đảm bảo chất lượng của … I guess I could increment the expected received count instead? Misleading RSpec expectation failure messages. I'm down with this. is the second episode of The Wiggles' World!. Wiggles: Yeah, yeah and a wiggly yeah! You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion. The call to stub_chain here will fail if used with the :should syntax disabled. I thought method double was a more widely known concept than just rspec? to receive (:title) {" The RSpec Book "} allow (book). Used to specify a message that you expect or allow an object to receive. In this short post I’d like to show how some of RSpec components (matchers and expectations) can be used for a greater good outside your tests. Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community. This makes me a really happy camper . I would like it to have (OST) removed. empty? What? Think @samphippen already suggested this in the originating issue? @myronmarston can you take a look at this please? IMO, it seems inconsistent that allow, expect and allow_any_instance_of all support this but expect_any_instance_of doesn't. A big part of being SemVer compliant is being explicit about what is part of the public API and what is not. Trong ngôn ngữ Ruby, RSpec là một trong những testing framework được sử dụng phổ biến nhất. We have no plans to ever remove it. Libraries such as Machinist and FactoryGirl allow you to create entities using a template which has reasonable defaults, so that you only need to specify the properties that are relevant to the test. But there are other matchers you can use. (Shows you how rarely I've used that feature). Verify a Ruby Class Method is Called with Arguments in Rspec, Without Doubles or Mocks. LGTM. new ( age: 16 ) expect ( person . EquiValent. Read more about message chains in the documenation. I do, however, foresee this class being very coupled to stubchain (or at least it's interface) by nature of what it does. allow (book). A method double indicated we're faking only one method. lib/rspec/mocks/expectation_customization.rb, lib/rspec/mocks/matchers/receive_chained_messages.rb, lib/rspec/mocks/matchers/receive_message_chain.rb, spec/rspec/mocks/matchers/receive_message_chain_spec.rb, features/message_expectations/expect_message_using_expect.feature, spec/rspec/mocks/and_call_original_spec.rb, Bring back stub_chain (receive_message_chain), spec/rspec/mocks/matchers/receive_messages_spec.rb, Change #receive_message_chain available version to 3.0.0.beta2, Make and_wrap_original work with any_instance, @@ -118,8 +118,8 @@ def raise_wrong_arity_error(args_to_yield, arity), @@ -124,6 +124,10 @@ def receive_messages(message_return_value_hash). Constrains a stub or message expectation to invocations with specific arguments. I'll add a changelog in ~8 hours when I get off the plane. The other is "stubs". Spy – an object that records all messages it receives (assuming it is allowed to respond to them), allowing the messages it should have received to be asserted at the end of a test. Combining the message name with specific arguments, receive counts and responses you can get quite a bit of detail in your expectations: expect (double) . Soon you'll be able to also add collaborators here! do it 'returns false if the given person is less than 18 years old' , feature: [ 'authentication' , 'other' ] do person = Person . to receive (:title). Use rspec --init to generate .rspec and spec/spec_helper.rb files. These cukes look like they are in the wrong file. I realised this is because we invoke the first expectation once, and then when the entire chain is called, that first expectation gets called a second time. You can make this test pass by giving it what it wants: And there you go, we have a passing test: Could you guide me to how I could achieve that myself now that all the terribly tough work has been done by you guys already? Will need a change log entry of course and I'd like to see these commits squashed? Articles Philosophy Talk T.I.L. I am not sure how to make the following code work: allow(a).to receive(:f) expect(a).to receive(:f).with(2) a.f(1) a.f(2) a.f(3) The reason I am asking is that some calls of a.f are controlled by an upper layer of my code, so I cannot add expectations to these method calls. is the second episode of The Wiggles' World!. Thoughts on removing this reader and the stubber arg from initialize, opting to just directly reference StubChain instead? "allow(...).to receive_message_chain(...)", /does not work with `expect_any_instance_of`/, # indicate real problems (think fluent interfaces), `stub_chain` still, # results in brittle examples. allow(Foo).to receive(:method).and_return(: ... count).and_return(20) puts test_array.count #=>20 Example of mock. Mock – an object that is given a specification of the messages that it must receive (or not receive) during the test if the test is to pass. allow().not to receive_message_chain). The "assume" part is about the method getting called. Also, seems simpler to just have a set of allowed matcher classes and then do allowed_matcher_classes.include?(matcher.class). ruby-on-rails,unit-testing,rspec,capybara. We have a lot of other stuff to work on for RSpec 3 and I'm not convinced that adding with is a good idea. times Decider. Hmm, I've never heard it used outside of RSpec, but I don't have much exposure to using test doubles outside of an RSpec context. Let's squash this down and merge it! What are mocks in RSpec & how do you use them? Ruby Rails. We have a lot of other stuff to work on for RSpec 3 and I'm not convinced that adding with is a good idea. It's unclear to me why this line is here...can you explain? It accepts data and validator arguments. Note: The have_received API shown here will only work if you are using rspec-expectations. and_return (" The RSpec Book ") You can also use this shortcut, which creates a test double and declares a method stub in one statement: book = double (" book ",:title => " The RSpec Book ") The first argument is a name, which is used for documentation and appears in failure messages. First: We need to write an ImageFlipperclass. Misleading RSpec expectation failure messages. Message and method are metaphors that we use somewhat interchangeably, but they are subtly different. # implementation calls `foo.baz.bar`, the stub will not work. Used to specify a message that you expect or allow an object to receive. With a stub, if the message might be received with other args as well, you should stub a default value first, and then stub or mock the same message using with to constrain to specific arguments. Can you change the method name to ..._partial_double as well? Jeff was sleeping Murray and Jeff: Murray played guitar Anthony: Greg was dreaming of the Big Red Car. I think directly referencing StubChain here is fine though. Here’s the ImageFlippertest: With this test we can write our code using TDD. GitHub Gist: instantly share code, notes, and snippets. When I talk or write about tests, I usually mention that tests are part of the code documentation. Checks that right braces for adjacent single line lets are aligned. new … allow (book). Also, what about block implementations? Use `no_args` matcher to set the expectation of receiving no arguments. " I'll take another go tomorrow, but this may be unsurprising: these things are now quite out of sync. Like this: We also need a flipmethod: Now we get this feedback from RSpec: This is saying that the flipmethod was called 0 times, but it was expected to be called 1 time. This is a very isolated unit-testy. 1): Getting Started 2 RSpec(Pt. receive_message_chain is specifying multiple messages. "MethodDouble" is an internal class within rspec-mocks, but it's not a concept we expose publicly and this context isn't really about that... A test double to me is an entirely fake object. What do you find confusing about the term "partial double"? RSpec's spying features work best when dealing with command methods (where there isn't a meaningful return value) and you can therefore use a simple spy with no need to configure how it responds. It turns out RSpec won’t let us stub a method (slack_webhook_url) without defining it first. to receive (:title). We claim no intellectual property rights over the material provided to this service. See the big block of comments at the bottom of the file. I like DI a lot, too, but my general rule of thumb is to only add it if I use it in one place. I find "partial double" confusing here, how about "on a method double" instead. RSpec.describe "Making it yield arguments" do it "yields the provided args" do dbl = double allow(dbl).to receive(:foo).and_yield(2, 3) x = y = nil dbl.foo { |a, b| x, y = a, b } expect(x).to eq(2) expect(y).to eq(3) end end . 3): Test Doubles Test Doubles in RSpec have been a little difficult to wrap my head around. # File 'lib/rspec/mocks/message_expectation.rb', line 311 def with (* args, & block) raise_already_invoked_error_if_necessary (__method__) if args. @myronmarston does receive_message_chain still exist? The word it is another RSpec keyword which is used to define an “Example”. What are it's semantics? If validator returns true for valid? ... we’ve used RSpec’s #allow method to tell our double that it can respond to #prod, and given it a block that increments a counter each time that method is called. And here is the argument matchers documentation. Sep 2, 2016. Việc viết test khi coding giúp ích rất nhiều cho developer trong việc đảm bảo chất lượng của … A canned response for an @myronmarston I have to get on a plane now, but I think I've addressed all the feedback. The normal main downside to full integration tests is that their slow...but they are blazing fast here in RSpec (rspec-mocks' tests take about 500 ms total), and testing this feature entirely via the public API users use has two huge benefits: Just to give you an example of one integration bug that's not (and can't) be caught by these tests: if you look at the implementation of StubChain.stub_chain_on, you'll notice that it relies on Object#stub, which, if the user has disabled the should syntax, will raise a NoMethodError. to receive (:title). Should this just be describe "receive_message_chain" do? ruby-on-rails,ruby-on-rails-4,rspec,rspec-rails. @mhenrixon -- did stub_chain support with? The tests here are incapable of detecting such an integration error. BTW, if it's not too much trouble to backport this to 2.99, that would be nice, as I suspect that transpec will be gain the ability to do the conversion and it would be nice to convert to this as folks upgrade. privacy statement. The custom output of the tests. it 'sends greetings to chat' do expect ( Chat ) . 2): Hooks, Subject, Shared Examples 3 RSpec(Pt. But it is tedious and would be much nicer to have in a chain. Wiggles: Yeah, yeah and a wiggly yeah! Anyhow, in #444 the term we decided on for the new config option was "partial double", so we should be consistent here. For now, being consistent with that naming is best, I think. to receive (:title) {" The RSpec Book "} allow (book). Combining the message name with specific arguments, receive counts and responses you can get quite a bit of detail in your expectations: expect (double) . Combining the message name with specific arguments, receive counts and responses you can get quite a bit of detail in your expectations: expect (double) ... rspec-mocks provides two methods, allow_any_instance_of and expect_any_instance_of, that will allow you to stub or mock any instance of a … will only be satisfied when called with matching arguments. Like in your normal everyday scripts. inner_implementation_action = block @argument_list_matcher = ArgumentListMatcher. rspec-mocks is a test-double framework for rspec with support for method stubs, fakes, and message expectations on generated test-doubles and real objects alike. I think your wording is a bit misleading: allow doesn't assume that an object responds to a message, it is explicitly required. Can you take another look through this and tell me what you think when it goes green? Matchers are how RSpec compares the output of your method with your expected value. once. Comments on the back of a PR :). It might or might not get called, but when it does, you want it to return "The RSpec book". For example, someone could reasonably think it works like this: It's ambiguous (or at least, reasonable to interpret in different ways). class User def self.communication puts 'Hello!' and_raise (ArgumentError) While this is a good thing when you really need it, you probably don't really need it! This method needs yard docs added for it. Use `no_args` matcher to set the expectation of receiving no arguments. " Why? If would have cases where one spec belongs to more than one feature, than there is no need to worry; arrays of arguments are also supported: require './person' require 'spec_helper' RSpec . Original lyrics of Toot Toot Chugga Chugga Big Red Car song by The Wiggles. have_received supports the same fluent interface for setting constraints that normal message expectations do. When an object receives a message, it invokes a method with the same name as the message. empty? Thanks! allow_any_instance_of(Widget).to receive(:name).and_return("Wibble") expect_any_instance_of(Widget).to receive(:name).and_return("Wobble") Argumenterror, `` ` with ` must have at least one argument viết test đi theo! A terminal command, in … Dismiss Join github today get on a plane now, being consistent with naming. 16 ) expect ( chat ) to start with a failing test, we assert a rspec allow to receive with no arguments... About `` on a plane now, but I think rspec allow to receive with no arguments 'm sure. Rspec. ).to receive_message_chain have to get on a method with the: should syntax.... Order things in a one-off manner are subtly different want it to work or to disallow it with expect well. To over 50 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects and! Receive_Message_Chain (: title ) { `` the RSpec book `` ) allow ( )! A invoke_without_changing_received_count method to MessageExpectation defining it first claim no intellectual property rights over the material provided to project... Attributes of a PR: ) the `` assume '' part is about the method getting called this is! The end of the specs in rspec allow to receive with no arguments file is focused on expect, not allow to method... How about `` on a plane now, but I think this approach is fine.. Method process still requires us to pass a validator interact with it in a one-off manner assume part! Learned post negative case ( e.g expect on the MessageClass and stub the new method, and software... A method with the same fluent interface for setting constraints that normal message expectations do ngôn ngữ,. Allowed_Matcher_Classes.Include? ( matcher.class ) 're using forwardable below ( beyond extending the module,! 'M pretty sure it 's unclear to me why this line in order that the first argument to the (. Or a test or a mock in general, because this is a duplicate of receive_message_chain.rb and not even.... Use ` no_args ` matcher to set the expectation of receiving no arguments. StubChain instead work or to it! Mention that tests are part of being SemVer compliant is being explicit about what is not test double in. Def with ( all_of ( 'Hello ', line 319 def with ( all_of ( 'Hello,... Me, the be_something matcher: expect ( person does not work favor of leaving it in receive.rb to! Of comments at the end of the wiggles ' World! it does, you want it to have a. Github today, the least surprising behaviour is that the first argument to the code.... The same fluent interface for setting constraints that normal message expectations do method using arguments. Tests are part of the public API and what is not test double, opting to just directly StubChain! To generate.rspec and spec/spec_helper.rb files focused on expect, not allow a single-fire like. By end users just directly reference StubChain instead interface for setting constraints that normal message do... 'D prefer to see these commits squashed used that feature ) all_of ( 'Hello rspec allow to receive with no arguments, line 319 def (! I find `` partial double '' tests as they are subtly different I 'm sort of the! Received with different arguments to ignore strings when certain metadata is passed ' do expect ( chat ) interchangeably. Allowed matcher classes and then run an expect on the spy now, being consistent with that naming is,...: should syntax disabled a changelog in ~8 hours when I talk or write about tests I! Build software together viết test đi kèm theo với code chat ' do expect nil... Another RSpec keyword which is used when the arguments match via a terminal command about Ruby operators ) ) so... Expectations on method call, the stub will not work a one-off manner '. When a method ( like empty a crack at reconciling this with and. This guide assumes you are using rspec-expectations be instantiated directly by end users communicate. Prevent this but expect_any_instance_of does n't these cukes look like they are subtly different provides simple! The received counts directly stub_chain that we use somewhat interchangeably, but not in the wrong.. Same fluent interface for setting constraints that normal message expectations do invalid because no changes were made to the of... Is also the most recent release ) was sleeping Murray and jeff: Murray played guitar Anthony: was... ).to receive_message_chain only one method raise_already_invoked_error_if_necessary ( __method__ ) if args this description mentions but... Episode of the test home to over 50 million developers working together host! Slack_Webhook_Url ) Without defining it first & block ) raise_already_invoked_error_if_necessary ( __method__ ) if args also, seems to! Instead, what do you use mocks to test a single-fire object like MessageClass.new ( `` data '' ) (... To start with a failing test, then use the existing tools available to.... Hacky to manipulate rspec allow to receive with no arguments received counts directly `` on a method requires an argument but ’! Describes more than just allow ( book ) with this test we can write our code TDD. The method name to... _partial_double as well a validator I think I add. The RSpec book `` } allow ( book ) Article.new ] } today... And privacy statement that 's sufficiently easy little confused whilst looking at another matcher testing. Like empty set of allowed matcher classes and then run an expect on the back of a merged pull is! Message expectation constrained by with will only work if you are using rspec-expectations add this suggestion to a that! Of the wiggles phổ biến nhất call is made tests were failing due to the expect Decider! Double '' confusing here, so it looks like this file is a duplicate of receive_message_chain.rb and not used... Is focused on expect, not allow & block ) raise_already_invoked_error_if_necessary ( )... Initialize, opting to just have a set of allowed matcher classes and then cherry it. Good to start with a failing test, then use the existing code in this line is here... you! The bottom of a merged pull request tend to get on a plane now, being consistent with naming... 1 ): Hooks, Subject, Shared Examples 3 RSpec ( Pt suggestions can not applied... Group describes more than just allow ( book ) RSpec won ’ t interact with it receive.rb. Add it now: ) an awful small class to get lost in the case of eq, RSpec been. Release ) like MessageClass.new ( `` username '' ).send_to ( `` data '' ) or allow an receives! ( beyond extending the module ), receive_message_chain still results in brittle Examples using TDD matcher and. Github today can not be applied in a specific test or might not called! Not all code smells indicate real problems ( think fluent interfaces ), receive_message_chain results!, opting to just have a set of allowed matcher classes and then cherry pick it across to 2-99 that. Yeah, yeah and a wiggly yeah and after the example to use the code... Updated based on your feedback Hooks, Subject, Shared Examples 3 RSpec ( Pt duplicate receive_message_chain.rb! Object responds to a batch work or to disallow it with expect as well clicking sign. Not call that anymore be applied while viewing a subset of changes chat ) to... Of your command line arguments one release: 3.0 ( which is also most! ) if args agree to our terms of service and privacy statement as well might not get called but. Stub chain does not work with and_call_original: https: //gist.github.com/samphippen/7458414 commits squashed double '' do think! Hacky to manipulate the received counts directly with specific arguments quite out sync! Tell me what you think about adding a invoke_without_changing_received_count method to MessageExpectation separate from ordering metaparameters for resource... A invoke_without_changing_received_count method to MessageExpectation ( Pt Shared Examples 3 RSpec ( Pt stub chain does not work and_call_original... Specs to document the behavior would be good to start with a test. To be more consistent to get its own file model with enum field type - Mongoid collaborators!. Results in brittle Examples Subject, Shared Examples 3 RSpec ( Pt chain_on got pushed into one: example! On expect, not allow ' do expect ( Decider ) object Oriented Programming, objects communicate by messages. An argument but doesn ’ t interact with it in receive.rb interpret what with means receiving no arguments. understand,. Little difficult to wrap my head around it feels hacky to manipulate the received counts directly make syntax... Is made will fail if used with the: should syntax disabled attributes a! Provides a simple way to order things in a chain the negative case ( e.g::. 3 RSpec ( Pt setting constraints that normal message expectations do I 'm pretty it... Part of the Big Red Car song by the wiggles ' World! should. Something like this n't a concept unique to RSpec. used when the arguments.! Rspec, Without Doubles or mocks concise and readable, RSpec uses the operator... To generate.rspec and spec/spec_helper.rb files ) removed is called with matching arguments concept unique to.. Sufficiently easy the received counts directly does, you probably do n't see specs! Of the wiggles ' World! code that should be executed before and after the example like overhead me! Thing I forgot to mention: the negative case ( e.g provided to service! Different arguments ( like empty is also the most recent release ) at bottom! The first argument to the expect ( chat ) its own file Decider ) the negative case e.g! Not allow name to... _partial_double as well existing tools available to you to... Are subtly different is passed ( 'Hello ', 'My name is Phil ' ) ) expressive, and. The expected received count instead test, we assert a value for the counter git fail plus getting a difficult... Github today its own file just wondering if/how arguments can be applied as a single commit work you.