Nested factory references don't play well with the prefix

[elliotcm]

I don't know for sure if this is an issue since I quickly chose a different option to keep development going, but during my first tries it seemed like the concept of "no prefix for in-engine tests, prefix for apps using the engine" doesn't quite work because if you reference another factory from within your factory (like when it's inferred from an association) then there's a mismatch.

e.g. for an engine called Testing

Factory.define :user do
  office
end

Factory.define :office do
end

When you're working within the engine then creating a :user creates an :office just fine, but outside the engine, creating a :testing_user fails because there's no :office defined (because it's now :testing_office).

Does that jive with your experience or did I mess up somewhere? I can take a look at a fix otherwise.

[zspencer]

Can you show me the with_namespace call you're doing? If prefix_optional: true is not set in testing/spec/factories/offices.rb, then :office will only be available as :testing_office.

That said, it would be nice if with_namespace played well with the seam FactoryBot uses to infer associations.

For example:

with_namespace(:Testing, require_prefix: false) do
  define :user do
    office
  end
end

Unpacked to something like:

with_namespace(:Testing, require_prefix: false) do
 define :user do 
   office { association(:office, factory: :testing_office) }
 end
end

So that if you have :office and :testing_office the :testing_user factory always used :testing_office (rather than whichever :office happened to be loaded first.

[elliotcm]

Can you show me the with_namespace call you're doing? If prefix_optional: true is not set in testing/spec/factories/offices.rb, then :office will only be available as :testing_office.

Yeah sorry that was just me sketching the issue out, I got rid of the code but it was something to the effect of with_namespace: ENV.fetch("LOCAL_FACTORIES", "true") == "true"

But again that's just off the top of my head, it wasn't exactly that, but a mechanism to switch prefix off for engine dev.

That said, it would be nice if with_namespace played well with the seam FactoryBot uses to infer associations.

For example:

with_namespace(:Testing, require_prefix: false) do
  define :user do
    office
  end
end

Unpacked to something like:

with_namespace(:Testing, require_prefix: false) do
 define :user do 
   office { association(:office, factory: :testing_office) }
 end
end

So that if you have :office and :testing_office the :testing_user factory always used :testing_office (rather than whichever :office happened to be loaded first.

Yes exactly.

[elliotcm]

@zspencer I'm having a little trouble running the tests, is this an activerecord version issue? I'm running through bundler so it's using the versions in the lock file.

  1) FactoryBot::NamespacedFactories has a version number
     Failure/Error: connection.create_table(table_name, &block)

     ArgumentError:
       wrong number of arguments (given 5, expected 1..4)
     # ./.bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/activerecord-5.2.8/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/abstract/schema_definitions.rb:263:in `initialize'
     # ./.bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/activerecord-5.2.8/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/sqlite3/schema_statements.rb:60:in `new'
     # ./.bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/activerecord-5.2.8/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/sqlite3/schema_statements.rb:60:in `create_table_definition'
     # ./.bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/activerecord-5.2.8/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/abstract/schema_statements.rb:291:in `create_table'
     # ./spec/spec_helper.rb:45:in `create_table'
     # ./spec/spec_helper.rb:32:in `define_model'
     # ./spec/factory_bot/namespaced_factories_spec.rb:7:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>'

Or perhaps a ruby version issue?

[zspencer]

I had the same issue on Ruby 3.1; which is why I loosened the Gemfile dependencies.

(Also maybe these should be development dependencies? It's been a while since I've futzed with a Real Gem ™️ rather than just gem(s) in a monolith.)

Note: the Lockfile is not checked in, so you should be able to bundle update and not impact anyone else.

[elliotcm]

(Also maybe these should be development dependencies? It's been a while since I've futzed with a Real Gem ™️ rather than just gem(s) in a monolith.)

Perhaps! Honestly I mostly pretend to know what I'm doing when making gems.

Note: the Lockfile is not checked in, so you should be able to bundle update and not impact anyone else.

👍🏻