# ChefSpec for LWRPs without recipes

**URL:** <https://discourse.chef.io/t/chefspec-for-lwrps-without-recipes/4005>\
**Category:** Chef Infra (archive)\
**Created:** [May 1, 2013, 2:53pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chefspec-for-lwrps-without-recipes/4005 "2013-05-01T14:53:21Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 12\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bryan\_Stenson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.chef.io/bryan_stenson/32/420_2.png) [@Bryan\_Stenson](https://discourse.chef.io/u/Bryan_Stenson)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2013, 2:53pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chefspec-for-lwrps-without-recipes/4005/1 "2013-05-01T14:53:21Z")

</div>

Ohai!

Following the cookbook pattern described in the “Berkshelf Way”, I’m trying  
to create a library cookbook which contains some custom LWRPs. This  
library cookbook will not have any meaningful recipe on its own…it will  
only supply providers and resources to be consumed by application cookbooks.

I’d like to test the library cookbook separately, and I think ChefSpec is  
the correct approach for unit testing. I see that ChefSpec takes a recipe  
list when “converging”, but, since my library cookbook won’t have recipes,  
I don’t have one to give to ChefRunner.

I suppose I’d like some suggestions/experiences on how to do this. From my  
perspective, I can see at least two ways to solve it (with a STRONG  
preference on the latter):

1. Create a “lwrp\_testing.rb” recipe which will specifically call out to  
each LWRP the library cookbook provides. I don’t like this cause then I’ve  
got a testing recipe floating around which COULD be applied to a node in  
production - and that’s just silly. I could prefix this recipe with a “\_”  
(as in, “\_lwrp\_testing.rb”), but again, it feels like a hack.

2. Create a recipe fixture for testing the LWRP for use only during  
ChefSpec runs. The recipe would only exist in the context of a ChefSpec  
run, and allow for valid exercise of the underlying LWRPs during  
testing…at the same time, the recipe would not exist “for reals” in the  
cookbook, and couldn’t be assigned to a run\_list. This seems like an  
elegant approach (design wise), but my Ruby skills are not to the level  
they should be to easily implement this. Anybody else try this?

Or, perhaps there’s another solution I’m overlooking?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Bryan

PS - Thanks to everybody for another great ChefConf!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Malte\_Swart](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.chef.io/malte_swart/32/564_2.png) [@Malte\_Swart](https://discourse.chef.io/u/Malte_Swart)\
**Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 9:08pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chefspec-for-lwrps-without-recipes/4005/2 "2013-05-08T21:08:44Z")

</div>

Hey,

I had to solve the same problem for a cookbook of my own.

My approach is similar to your second alternative. A created another (test)  
cookbook which uses and depends on the main cookbook (LWRP, definitions ...).  
I put this cookbook under spec/support/cookbooks and adjusted the ChefSpec  
cookbook\_path to use also spec/support/cookbook to search for cookbooks. [1](https://github.com/acrmp/chefspec#varying-the-cookbook-path)  
It is undocumented but chefspec supports like the chef client also a list of  
directories as cookbook\_path.  
In my case Chef::ChefRunner.new cookbook\_path: [ '..',  
'spec/support/cookbooks' ] works great. There might be a more robust way to  
set the cookbook path like [2](https://github.com/acrmp/chefspec/blob/master/lib/chefspec/chef_runner.rb#L161) - but if chefspec is started from the cookbook  
directory, there should no problem.

I hope this late answer helps you, too.

Malte.

On Wednesday, 01 May 2013 07:53:21 Bryan Stenson wrote:

> Ohai!
> 
> Following the cookbook pattern described in the "Berkshelf Way", I'm trying  
> to create a library cookbook which contains some custom LWRPs. This  
> library cookbook will not have any meaningful recipe on its own...it will  
> only supply providers and resources to be consumed by application cookbooks.
> 
> I'd like to test the library cookbook separately, and I think ChefSpec is  
> the correct approach for unit testing. I see that ChefSpec takes a recipe  
> list when "converging", but, since my library cookbook won't have recipes,  
> I don't have one to give to ChefRunner.
> 
> I suppose I'd like some suggestions/experiences on how to do this. From my  
> perspective, I can see at least two ways to solve it (with a STRONG  
> preference on the latter):
> 
> 1. Create a "lwrp\_testing.rb" recipe which will specifically call out to  
> each LWRP the library cookbook provides. I don't like this cause then I've  
> got a testing recipe floating around which COULD be applied to a node in  
> production - and that's just silly. I could prefix this recipe with a "\_"  
> (as in, "\_lwrp\_testing.rb"), but again, it feels like a hack.
> 
> 2. Create a recipe fixture for testing the LWRP for use only during  
> ChefSpec runs. The recipe would only exist in the context of a ChefSpec  
> run, and allow for valid exercise of the underlying LWRPs during  
> testing...at the same time, the recipe would not exist "for reals" in the  
> cookbook, and couldn't be assigned to a run\_list. This seems like an  
> elegant approach (design wise), but my Ruby skills are not to the level  
> they should be to easily implement this. Anybody else try this?
> 
> Or, perhaps there's another solution I'm overlooking?
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts.
> 
> Bryan
> 
> PS - Thanks to everybody for another great ChefConf!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bryan\_Stenson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.chef.io/bryan_stenson/32/420_2.png) [@Bryan\_Stenson](https://discourse.chef.io/u/Bryan_Stenson)\
**Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 1:25pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chefspec-for-lwrps-without-recipes/4005/3 "2013-05-09T13:25:40Z")

</div>

This is perfect. I got the same response off list from Eric Saxby, too. I  
really appreciate the response here.

Ultimately, I think this type of design should be baked in to  
Chefspec...seems to violate the DRY principle that I'd have to setup EVERY  
cookbook like this just to test "recipe-less" LWRPs.

Cheers.

Bryan

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Malte Swart [chef@malteswart.de](mailto:chef@malteswart.de) wrote:

> Hey,
> 
> I had to solve the same problem for a cookbook of my own.
> 
> My approach is similar to your second alternative. A created another (test)  
> cookbook which uses and depends on the main cookbook (LWRP, definitions  
> ...).  
> I put this cookbook under spec/support/cookbooks and adjusted the ChefSpec  
> cookbook\_path to use also spec/support/cookbook to search for cookbooks.  
> [1](https://github.com/acrmp/chefspec#varying-the-cookbook-path)  
> It is undocumented but chefspec supports like the chef client also a list  
> of  
> directories as cookbook\_path.  
> In my case Chef::ChefRunner.new cookbook\_path: [ '..',  
> 'spec/support/cookbooks' ] works great. There might be a more robust way to  
> set the cookbook path like [2] - but if chefspec is started from the  
> cookbook  
> directory, there should no problem.
> 
> I hope this late answer helps you, too.
> 
> Malte.
> 
> [2]:
> 
> [https://github.com/acrmp/chefspec/blob/master/lib/chefspec/chef\_runner.rb#L161](https://github.com/acrmp/chefspec/blob/master/lib/chefspec/chef_runner.rb#L161)
> 
> On Wednesday, 01 May 2013 07:53:21 Bryan Stenson wrote:
> 
> > Ohai!
> > 
> > Following the cookbook pattern described in the "Berkshelf Way", I'm  
> > trying  
> > to create a library cookbook which contains some custom LWRPs. This  
> > library cookbook will not have any meaningful recipe on its own...it will  
> > only supply providers and resources to be consumed by application  
> > cookbooks.
> > 
> > I'd like to test the library cookbook separately, and I think ChefSpec is  
> > the correct approach for unit testing. I see that ChefSpec takes a  
> > recipe  
> > list when "converging", but, since my library cookbook won't have  
> > recipes,  
> > I don't have one to give to ChefRunner.
> > 
> > I suppose I'd like some suggestions/experiences on how to do this. From  
> > my  
> > perspective, I can see at least two ways to solve it (with a STRONG  
> > preference on the latter):
> > 
> > 1. Create a "lwrp\_testing.rb" recipe which will specifically call out to  
> > each LWRP the library cookbook provides. I don't like this cause then  
> > I've  
> > got a testing recipe floating around which COULD be applied to a node in  
> > production - and that's just silly. I could prefix this recipe with a  
> > "\_"  
> > (as in, "\_lwrp\_testing.rb"), but again, it feels like a hack.
> > 
> > 2. Create a recipe fixture for testing the LWRP for use only during  
> > ChefSpec runs. The recipe would only exist in the context of a ChefSpec  
> > run, and allow for valid exercise of the underlying LWRPs during  
> > testing...at the same time, the recipe would not exist "for reals" in the  
> > cookbook, and couldn't be assigned to a run\_list. This seems like an  
> > elegant approach (design wise), but my Ruby skills are not to the level  
> > they should be to easily implement this. Anybody else try this?
> > 
> > Or, perhaps there's another solution I'm overlooking?
> > 
> > Thanks for your thoughts.
> > 
> > Bryan
> > 
> > PS - Thanks to everybody for another great ChefConf!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![millisami\_r](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.chef.io/millisami_r/32/418_2.png) [@millisami\_r](https://discourse.chef.io/u/millisami_r)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2013, 4:27pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chefspec-for-lwrps-without-recipes/4005/4 "2013-05-01T16:27:18Z")

</div>

+1

I m too kinda similar situation.

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013, Bryan Stenson wrote:

> Ohai!
> 
> Following the cookbook pattern described in the "Berkshelf Way", I'm  
> trying to create a library cookbook which contains some custom LWRPs. This  
> library cookbook will not have any meaningful recipe on its own...it will  
> only supply providers and resources to be consumed by application cookbooks.
> 
> I'd like to test the library cookbook separately, and I think ChefSpec is  
> the correct approach for unit testing. I see that ChefSpec takes a recipe  
> list when "converging", but, since my library cookbook won't have recipes,  
> I don't have one to give to ChefRunner.
> 
> I suppose I'd like some suggestions/experiences on how to do this. From  
> my perspective, I can see at least two ways to solve it (with a STRONG  
> preference on the latter):
> 
> 1. Create a "lwrp\_testing.rb" recipe which will specifically call out to  
> each LWRP the library cookbook provides. I don't like this cause then I've  
> got a testing recipe floating around which COULD be applied to a node in  
> production - and that's just silly. I could prefix this recipe with a "\_"  
> (as in, "\_lwrp\_testing.rb"), but again, it feels like a hack.
> 
> 2. Create a recipe fixture for testing the LWRP for use only during  
> ChefSpec runs. The recipe would only exist in the context of a ChefSpec  
> run, and allow for valid exercise of the underlying LWRPs during  
> testing...at the same time, the recipe would not exist "for reals" in the  
> cookbook, and couldn't be assigned to a run\_list. This seems like an  
> elegant approach (design wise), but my Ruby skills are not to the level  
> they should be to easily implement this. Anybody else try this?
> 
> Or, perhaps there's another solution I'm overlooking?
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts.
> 
> Bryan
> 
> PS - Thanks to everybody for another great ChefConf!

--

@millisami  
~Sachin Sagar Rai  
Ruby on Rails Developer  
[http://tfm.com.np](http://tfm.com.np)  
[http://nepalonrails.com](http://nepalonrails.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Dewey](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.chef.io/john_dewey/32/457_2.png) [@John\_Dewey](https://discourse.chef.io/u/John_Dewey)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chefspec-for-lwrps-without-recipes/4005/5 "2013-05-01T16:34:54Z")

</div>

I believe you can simply create an empty default.rb,  
and "step into" the LWRP you wish to test.

John

On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 10:12:18PM +0545, millisami r wrote:

> +1
> 
> I m too kinda similar situation.  
> On Wednesday, May 1, 2013, Bryan Stenson wrote:
> 
> Ohai!  
> Following the cookbook pattern described in the "Berkshelf Way", I'm  
> trying to create a library cookbook which contains some custom LWRPs.  
> This library cookbook will not have any meaningful recipe on its  
> own...it will only supply providers and resources to be consumed by  
> application cookbooks.  
> I'd like to test the library cookbook separately, and I think ChefSpec  
> is the correct approach for unit testing. I see that ChefSpec takes a  
> recipe list when "converging", but, since my library cookbook won't  
> have recipes, I don't have one to give to ChefRunner.  
> I suppose I'd like some suggestions/experiences on how to do this.  
> From my perspective, I can see at least two ways to solve it (with a  
> STRONG preference on the latter):
> 
> 1. Create a "lwrp\_testing.rb" recipe which will specifically call out  
> to each LWRP the library cookbook provides. I don't like this cause  
> then I've got a testing recipe floating around which COULD be applied  
> to a node in production - and that's just silly. I could prefix this  
> recipe with a "\_" (as in, "\_lwrp\_testing.rb"), but again, it feels like  
> a hack.
> 2. Create a recipe fixture for testing the LWRP for use only during  
> ChefSpec runs. The recipe would only exist in the context of a  
> ChefSpec run, and allow for valid exercise of the underlying LWRPs  
> during testing...at the same time, the recipe would not exist "for  
> reals" in the cookbook, and couldn't be assigned to a run\_list. This  
> seems like an elegant approach (design wise), but my Ruby skills are  
> not to the level they should be to easily implement this. Anybody else  
> try this?  
> Or, perhaps there's another solution I'm overlooking?  
> Thanks for your thoughts.  
> Bryan  
> PS - Thanks to everybody for another great ChefConf!
> 
> --  
> @millisami  
> ~Sachin Sagar Rai  
> Ruby on Rails Developer  
> [1][http://tfm.com.np](http://tfm.com.np)  
> [2][http://nepalonrails.com](http://nepalonrails.com)
> 
> References
> 
> 1. [http://tfm.com.np/](http://tfm.com.np/)
> 2. [http://nepalonrails.com/](http://nepalonrails.com/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mike](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.chef.io/mike/32/18_2.png) [@Mike](https://discourse.chef.io/u/Mike)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2013, 4:38pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chefspec-for-lwrps-without-recipes/4005/6 "2013-05-01T16:38:15Z")

</div>

John is right - it's becoming common to provide an empty default.rb  
for a cookbook that doesn't have any recipes.

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:34 PM, John Dewey [john@dewey.ws](mailto:john@dewey.ws) wrote:

> I believe you can simply create an empty default.rb,  
> and "step into" the LWRP you wish to test.
> 
> John
> 
> On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 10:12:18PM +0545, millisami r wrote:
> 
> > +1
> > 
> > I m too kinda similar situation.  
> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2013, Bryan Stenson wrote:
> > 
> > Ohai!  
> > Following the cookbook pattern described in the "Berkshelf Way", I'm  
> > trying to create a library cookbook which contains some custom LWRPs.  
> > This library cookbook will not have any meaningful recipe on its  
> > own...it will only supply providers and resources to be consumed by  
> > application cookbooks.  
> > I'd like to test the library cookbook separately, and I think ChefSpec  
> > is the correct approach for unit testing. I see that ChefSpec takes a  
> > recipe list when "converging", but, since my library cookbook won't  
> > have recipes, I don't have one to give to ChefRunner.  
> > I suppose I'd like some suggestions/experiences on how to do this.  
> > From my perspective, I can see at least two ways to solve it (with a  
> > STRONG preference on the latter):
> > 
> > 1. Create a "lwrp\_testing.rb" recipe which will specifically call out  
> > to each LWRP the library cookbook provides. I don't like this cause  
> > then I've got a testing recipe floating around which COULD be applied  
> > to a node in production - and that's just silly. I could prefix this  
> > recipe with a "\_" (as in, "\_lwrp\_testing.rb"), but again, it feels like  
> > a hack.
> > 2. Create a recipe fixture for testing the LWRP for use only during  
> > ChefSpec runs. The recipe would only exist in the context of a  
> > ChefSpec run, and allow for valid exercise of the underlying LWRPs  
> > during testing...at the same time, the recipe would not exist "for  
> > reals" in the cookbook, and couldn't be assigned to a run\_list. This  
> > seems like an elegant approach (design wise), but my Ruby skills are  
> > not to the level they should be to easily implement this. Anybody else  
> > try this?  
> > Or, perhaps there's another solution I'm overlooking?  
> > Thanks for your thoughts.  
> > Bryan  
> > PS - Thanks to everybody for another great ChefConf!
> > 
> > --  
> > @millisami  
> > ~Sachin Sagar Rai  
> > Ruby on Rails Developer  
> > [1][http://tfm.com.np](http://tfm.com.np)  
> > [2][http://nepalonrails.com](http://nepalonrails.com)
> > 
> > References
> > 
> > 1. [http://tfm.com.np/](http://tfm.com.np/)
> > 2. [http://nepalonrails.com/](http://nepalonrails.com/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bryan\_Stenson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.chef.io/bryan_stenson/32/420_2.png) [@Bryan\_Stenson](https://discourse.chef.io/u/Bryan_Stenson)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chefspec-for-lwrps-without-recipes/4005/7 "2013-05-01T16:49:49Z")

</div>

An empty default recipe, I suppose, I understand.

But, I think ":step\_into =\> ['foo']" only ALLOWS the ChefRunner to descend  
into the "foo" provider...it doesn't actually exercise it (how would it  
know the parameters to test?!)

At this point, I think I'm planning on copying the entire cookbook into a  
"temp" directory, applying "fixture recipes" to the copy, and pointing the  
ChefRunner to that directory as the :cookbook\_path

This will allow me to write "fixture recipes" for testing, and leave them  
out of the actual recipe folder (so they're unable to be used in a  
run\_list).

If/when I get something worthy of sharing, I will.

Bryan

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Mike [miketheman@gmail.com](mailto:miketheman@gmail.com) wrote:

> John is right - it's becoming common to provide an empty default.rb  
> for a cookbook that doesn't have any recipes.
> 
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:34 PM, John Dewey [john@dewey.ws](mailto:john@dewey.ws) wrote:
> 
> > I believe you can simply create an empty default.rb,  
> > and "step into" the LWRP you wish to test.
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 10:12:18PM +0545, millisami r wrote:
> > 
> > > +1
> > > 
> > > I m too kinda similar situation.  
> > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2013, Bryan Stenson wrote:
> > > 
> > > Ohai!  
> > > Following the cookbook pattern described in the "Berkshelf Way", I'm  
> > > trying to create a library cookbook which contains some custom LWRPs.  
> > > This library cookbook will not have any meaningful recipe on its  
> > > own...it will only supply providers and resources to be consumed by  
> > > application cookbooks.  
> > > I'd like to test the library cookbook separately, and I think  
> > > ChefSpec  
> > > is the correct approach for unit testing. I see that ChefSpec takes  
> > > a  
> > > recipe list when "converging", but, since my library cookbook won't  
> > > have recipes, I don't have one to give to ChefRunner.  
> > > I suppose I'd like some suggestions/experiences on how to do this.  
> > > From my perspective, I can see at least two ways to solve it (with a  
> > > STRONG preference on the latter):
> > > 
> > > 1. Create a "lwrp\_testing.rb" recipe which will specifically call out  
> > > to each LWRP the library cookbook provides. I don't like this cause  
> > > then I've got a testing recipe floating around which COULD be applied  
> > > to a node in production - and that's just silly. I could prefix this  
> > > recipe with a "\_" (as in, "\_lwrp\_testing.rb"), but again, it feels  
> > > like  
> > > a hack.
> > > 2. Create a recipe fixture for testing the LWRP for use only during  
> > > ChefSpec runs. The recipe would only exist in the context of a  
> > > ChefSpec run, and allow for valid exercise of the underlying LWRPs  
> > > during testing...at the same time, the recipe would not exist "for  
> > > reals" in the cookbook, and couldn't be assigned to a run\_list. This  
> > > seems like an elegant approach (design wise), but my Ruby skills are  
> > > not to the level they should be to easily implement this. Anybody  
> > > else  
> > > try this?  
> > > Or, perhaps there's another solution I'm overlooking?  
> > > Thanks for your thoughts.  
> > > Bryan  
> > > PS - Thanks to everybody for another great ChefConf!
> > > 
> > > --  
> > > @millisami  
> > > ~Sachin Sagar Rai  
> > > Ruby on Rails Developer  
> > > [1][http://tfm.com.np](http://tfm.com.np)  
> > > [2][http://nepalonrails.com](http://nepalonrails.com)
> > > 
> > > References
> > > 
> > > 1. [http://tfm.com.np/](http://tfm.com.np/)
> > > 2. [http://nepalonrails.com/](http://nepalonrails.com/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Dewey](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.chef.io/john_dewey/32/457_2.png) [@John\_Dewey](https://discourse.chef.io/u/John_Dewey)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2013, 4:54pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chefspec-for-lwrps-without-recipes/4005/8 "2013-05-01T16:54:49Z")

</div>

You test it like anything else. A trivial example:  
[https://github.com/retr0h/cookbook-parted/blob/master/spec/\_test\_spec.rb](https://github.com/retr0h/cookbook-parted/blob/master/spec/_test_spec.rb)

John

On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 09:49:49AM -0700, Bryan Stenson wrote:

> An empty default recipe, I suppose, I understand.  
> But, I think ":step\_into =\> ['foo']" only ALLOWS the ChefRunner to  
> descend into the "foo" provider...it doesn't actually exercise it (how  
> would it know the parameters to test?!)  
> At this point, I think I'm planning on copying the entire cookbook into  
> a "temp" directory, applying "fixture recipes" to the copy, and  
> pointing the ChefRunner to that directory as the :cookbook\_path  
> This will allow me to write "fixture recipes" for testing, and leave  
> them out of the actual recipe folder (so they're unable to be used in a  
> run\_list).  
> If/when I get something worthy of sharing, I will.  
> Bryan
> 
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Mike \<[1]miketheman@gmail.com\> wrote:
> 
> ```
> John is right - it's becoming common to provide an empty default.rb
> for a cookbook that doesn't have any recipes.
> 
> ```
> 
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:34 PM, John Dewey \<[2]john@dewey.ws\> wrote:
> 
> > I believe you can simply create an empty default.rb,  
> > and "step into" the LWRP you wish to test.
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 10:12:18PM +0545, millisami r wrote:
> > 
> > > +1
> > > 
> > > I m too kinda similar situation.  
> > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2013, Bryan Stenson wrote:
> > > 
> > > Ohai!  
> > > Following the cookbook pattern described in the "Berkshelf Way",  
> > > I'm  
> > > trying to create a library cookbook which contains some custom  
> > > LWRPs.  
> > > This library cookbook will not have any meaningful recipe on its  
> > > own...it will only supply providers and resources to be consumed  
> > > by  
> > > application cookbooks.  
> > > I'd like to test the library cookbook separately, and I think  
> > > ChefSpec  
> > > is the correct approach for unit testing. I see that ChefSpec  
> > > takes a  
> > > recipe list when "converging", but, since my library cookbook  
> > > won't  
> > > have recipes, I don't have one to give to ChefRunner.  
> > > I suppose I'd like some suggestions/experiences on how to do  
> > > this.  
> > > From my perspective, I can see at least two ways to solve it  
> > > (with a  
> > > STRONG preference on the latter):
> > > 
> > > 1. Create a "lwrp\_testing.rb" recipe which will specifically call  
> > > out  
> > > to each LWRP the library cookbook provides. I don't like this  
> > > cause  
> > > then I've got a testing recipe floating around which COULD be  
> > > applied  
> > > to a node in production - and that's just silly. I could prefix  
> > > this  
> > > recipe with a "\_" (as in, "\_lwrp\_testing.rb"), but again, it  
> > > feels like  
> > > a hack.
> > > 2. Create a recipe fixture for testing the LWRP for use only  
> > > during  
> > > ChefSpec runs. The recipe would only exist in the context of a  
> > > ChefSpec run, and allow for valid exercise of the underlying  
> > > LWRPs  
> > > during testing...at the same time, the recipe would not exist  
> > > "for  
> > > reals" in the cookbook, and couldn't be assigned to a run\_list.  
> > > This  
> > > seems like an elegant approach (design wise), but my Ruby skills  
> > > are  
> > > not to the level they should be to easily implement this.  
> > > Anybody else  
> > > try this?  
> > > Or, perhaps there's another solution I'm overlooking?  
> > > Thanks for your thoughts.  
> > > Bryan  
> > > PS - Thanks to everybody for another great ChefConf!
> > > 
> > > --  
> > > @millisami  
> > > ~Sachin Sagar Rai  
> > > Ruby on Rails Developer  
> > > [1][3][http://tfm.com.np](http://tfm.com.np)  
> > > [2][4][http://nepalonrails.com](http://nepalonrails.com)
> > > 
> > > References
> > > 
> > > 1. [5][http://tfm.com.np/](http://tfm.com.np/)
> > > 2. [6][http://nepalonrails.com/](http://nepalonrails.com/)
> 
> References
> 
> 1. [mailto:miketheman@gmail.com](mailto:miketheman@gmail.com)
> 2. [mailto:john@dewey.ws](mailto:john@dewey.ws)
> 3. [http://tfm.com.np/](http://tfm.com.np/)
> 4. [http://nepalonrails.com/](http://nepalonrails.com/)
> 5. [http://tfm.com.np/](http://tfm.com.np/)
> 6. [http://nepalonrails.com/](http://nepalonrails.com/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![zts](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.chef.io/zts/32/111_2.png) [@zts](https://discourse.chef.io/u/zts)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chefspec-for-lwrps-without-recipes/4005/9 "2013-05-01T16:55:11Z")

</div>

While it isn't an especially useful answer, Chris Andrews at Venda added  
LWRP support to rspec-chef. I think that predated everyone rallying around  
chefspec, and rspec-chef seems to be abandoned.

The PR adding support is here: [Load LWRPs belonging to cookbooks under test by chrisa · Pull Request #5 · calavera/rspec-chef · GitHub](https://github.com/calavera/rspec-chef/pull/5)

You can see an example of its use to test a provider here:

> <https://github.com/VendaTech/chef-cookbook-ssl/blob/master/spec/providers/x509_certificate_spec.rb>

I really wish something similar existed for chefspec, as I think it's a  
vastly superior way of writing tests for LWRPs.

Zac  
(who also lacks the ruby-fu to add something similar to chefspec)

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Bryan Stenson [bryan.stenson@gmail.com](mailto:bryan.stenson@gmail.com)wrote:

> An empty default recipe, I suppose, I understand.
> 
> But, I think ":step\_into =\> ['foo']" only ALLOWS the ChefRunner to descend  
> into the "foo" provider...it doesn't actually exercise it (how would it  
> know the parameters to test?!)
> 
> At this point, I think I'm planning on copying the entire cookbook into a  
> "temp" directory, applying "fixture recipes" to the copy, and pointing the  
> ChefRunner to that directory as the :cookbook\_path
> 
> This will allow me to write "fixture recipes" for testing, and leave them  
> out of the actual recipe folder (so they're unable to be used in a  
> run\_list).
> 
> If/when I get something worthy of sharing, I will.
> 
> Bryan
> 
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Mike [miketheman@gmail.com](mailto:miketheman@gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> > John is right - it's becoming common to provide an empty default.rb  
> > for a cookbook that doesn't have any recipes.
> > 
> > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:34 PM, John Dewey [john@dewey.ws](mailto:john@dewey.ws) wrote:
> > 
> > > I believe you can simply create an empty default.rb,  
> > > and "step into" the LWRP you wish to test.
> > > 
> > > John
> > > 
> > > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 10:12:18PM +0545, millisami r wrote:
> > > 
> > > > +1
> > > > 
> > > > I m too kinda similar situation.  
> > > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2013, Bryan Stenson wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Ohai!  
> > > > Following the cookbook pattern described in the "Berkshelf Way", I'm  
> > > > trying to create a library cookbook which contains some custom  
> > > > LWRPs.  
> > > > This library cookbook will not have any meaningful recipe on its  
> > > > own...it will only supply providers and resources to be consumed by  
> > > > application cookbooks.  
> > > > I'd like to test the library cookbook separately, and I think  
> > > > ChefSpec  
> > > > is the correct approach for unit testing. I see that ChefSpec  
> > > > takes a  
> > > > recipe list when "converging", but, since my library cookbook won't  
> > > > have recipes, I don't have one to give to ChefRunner.  
> > > > I suppose I'd like some suggestions/experiences on how to do this.  
> > > > From my perspective, I can see at least two ways to solve it (with a  
> > > > STRONG preference on the latter):
> > > > 
> > > > 1. Create a "lwrp\_testing.rb" recipe which will specifically call  
> > > > out  
> > > > to each LWRP the library cookbook provides. I don't like this cause  
> > > > then I've got a testing recipe floating around which COULD be  
> > > > applied  
> > > > to a node in production - and that's just silly. I could prefix  
> > > > this  
> > > > recipe with a "\_" (as in, "\_lwrp\_testing.rb"), but again, it feels  
> > > > like  
> > > > a hack.
> > > > 2. Create a recipe fixture for testing the LWRP for use only during  
> > > > ChefSpec runs. The recipe would only exist in the context of a  
> > > > ChefSpec run, and allow for valid exercise of the underlying LWRPs  
> > > > during testing...at the same time, the recipe would not exist "for  
> > > > reals" in the cookbook, and couldn't be assigned to a run\_list.  
> > > > This  
> > > > seems like an elegant approach (design wise), but my Ruby skills are  
> > > > not to the level they should be to easily implement this. Anybody  
> > > > else  
> > > > try this?  
> > > > Or, perhaps there's another solution I'm overlooking?  
> > > > Thanks for your thoughts.  
> > > > Bryan  
> > > > PS - Thanks to everybody for another great ChefConf!
> > > > 
> > > > --  
> > > > @millisami  
> > > > ~Sachin Sagar Rai  
> > > > Ruby on Rails Developer  
> > > > [1][http://tfm.com.np](http://tfm.com.np)  
> > > > [2][http://nepalonrails.com](http://nepalonrails.com)
> > > > 
> > > > References
> > > > 
> > > > 1. [http://tfm.com.np/](http://tfm.com.np/)
> > > > 2. [http://nepalonrails.com/](http://nepalonrails.com/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bryan\_Stenson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.chef.io/bryan_stenson/32/420_2.png) [@Bryan\_Stenson](https://discourse.chef.io/u/Bryan_Stenson)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2013, 5:30pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chefspec-for-lwrps-without-recipes/4005/10 "2013-05-01T17:30:36Z")

</div>

Thanks John.

As described, I'm hoping to NOT have any testing recipes exist to be  
assigned to a node's run\_list. The purist in me rejects the idea that I  
have to have a recipe ("\_test.rb", in your example) just to test my LWRPs.

Having said that, I'm open to suggestions. Maybe my resistance to an "only  
used for testing recipe" is misguided or uninformed. If so, I'd like to  
hear why.

Bryan

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:54 AM, John Dewey [john@dewey.ws](mailto:john@dewey.ws) wrote:

> You test it like anything else. A trivial example:  
> [https://github.com/retr0h/cookbook-parted/blob/master/spec/\_test\_spec.rb](https://github.com/retr0h/cookbook-parted/blob/master/spec/_test_spec.rb)
> 
> John
> 
> On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 09:49:49AM -0700, Bryan Stenson wrote:
> 
> > An empty default recipe, I suppose, I understand.  
> > But, I think ":step\_into =\> ['foo']" only ALLOWS the ChefRunner to  
> > descend into the "foo" provider...it doesn't actually exercise it (how  
> > would it know the parameters to test?!)  
> > At this point, I think I'm planning on copying the entire cookbook  
> > into  
> > a "temp" directory, applying "fixture recipes" to the copy, and  
> > pointing the ChefRunner to that directory as the :cookbook\_path  
> > This will allow me to write "fixture recipes" for testing, and leave  
> > them out of the actual recipe folder (so they're unable to be used in  
> > a  
> > run\_list).  
> > If/when I get something worthy of sharing, I will.  
> > Bryan
> > 
> > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Mike \<[1]miketheman@gmail.com\> wrote:
> > 
> > ```
> > John is right - it's becoming common to provide an empty default.rb
> > for a cookbook that doesn't have any recipes.
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:34 PM, John Dewey \<[2]john@dewey.ws\> wrote:
> > 
> > > I believe you can simply create an empty default.rb,  
> > > and "step into" the LWRP you wish to test.
> > > 
> > > John
> > > 
> > > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 10:12:18PM +0545, millisami r wrote:
> > > 
> > > > +1
> > > > 
> > > > I m too kinda similar situation.  
> > > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2013, Bryan Stenson wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Ohai!  
> > > > Following the cookbook pattern described in the "Berkshelf Way",  
> > > > I'm  
> > > > trying to create a library cookbook which contains some custom  
> > > > LWRPs.  
> > > > This library cookbook will not have any meaningful recipe on its  
> > > > own...it will only supply providers and resources to be consumed  
> > > > by  
> > > > application cookbooks.  
> > > > I'd like to test the library cookbook separately, and I think  
> > > > ChefSpec  
> > > > is the correct approach for unit testing. I see that ChefSpec  
> > > > takes a  
> > > > recipe list when "converging", but, since my library cookbook  
> > > > won't  
> > > > have recipes, I don't have one to give to ChefRunner.  
> > > > I suppose I'd like some suggestions/experiences on how to do  
> > > > this.  
> > > > From my perspective, I can see at least two ways to solve it  
> > > > (with a  
> > > > STRONG preference on the latter):
> > > > 
> > > > 1. Create a "lwrp\_testing.rb" recipe which will specifically  
> > > > call  
> > > > out  
> > > > to each LWRP the library cookbook provides. I don't like this  
> > > > cause  
> > > > then I've got a testing recipe floating around which COULD be  
> > > > applied  
> > > > to a node in production - and that's just silly. I could prefix  
> > > > this  
> > > > recipe with a "\_" (as in, "\_lwrp\_testing.rb"), but again, it  
> > > > feels like  
> > > > a hack.
> > > > 2. Create a recipe fixture for testing the LWRP for use only  
> > > > during  
> > > > ChefSpec runs. The recipe would only exist in the context of a  
> > > > ChefSpec run, and allow for valid exercise of the underlying  
> > > > LWRPs  
> > > > during testing...at the same time, the recipe would not exist  
> > > > "for  
> > > > reals" in the cookbook, and couldn't be assigned to a run\_list.  
> > > > This  
> > > > seems like an elegant approach (design wise), but my Ruby skills  
> > > > are  
> > > > not to the level they should be to easily implement this.  
> > > > Anybody else  
> > > > try this?  
> > > > Or, perhaps there's another solution I'm overlooking?  
> > > > Thanks for your thoughts.  
> > > > Bryan  
> > > > PS - Thanks to everybody for another great ChefConf!
> > > > 
> > > > --  
> > > > @millisami  
> > > > ~Sachin Sagar Rai  
> > > > Ruby on Rails Developer  
> > > > [1][3][http://tfm.com.np](http://tfm.com.np)  
> > > > [2][4][http://nepalonrails.com](http://nepalonrails.com)
> > > > 
> > > > References
> > > > 
> > > > 1. [5][http://tfm.com.np/](http://tfm.com.np/)
> > > > 2. [6][http://nepalonrails.com/](http://nepalonrails.com/)
> > 
> > References
> > 
> > 1. [mailto:miketheman@gmail.com](mailto:miketheman@gmail.com)
> > 2. [mailto:john@dewey.ws](mailto:john@dewey.ws)
> > 3. [http://tfm.com.np/](http://tfm.com.np/)
> > 4. [http://nepalonrails.com/](http://nepalonrails.com/)
> > 5. [http://tfm.com.np/](http://tfm.com.np/)
> > 6. [http://nepalonrails.com/](http://nepalonrails.com/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![scottmlikens](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.chef.io/scottmlikens/32/126_2.png) [@scottmlikens](https://discourse.chef.io/u/scottmlikens)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chefspec-for-lwrps-without-recipes/4005/11 "2013-05-01T18:40:07Z")

</div>

Bryan,

I'd suggest to look at this in a different way. Creating test (or  
\_test) recipes you can create test scenarios for your lwrp to pass (or  
fail) on.

I have several cookbooks that exhibit this behavior such as  
[GitHub - scottmlikens/diamond: Chef Cookbook for deploying Diamond](https://github.com/damm/diamond) and [GitHub - scottmlikens/carbon: un-pattern of deploying carbon (cache/relay), see https://github.com/damm/graphite for counterpart.](https://github.com/damm/carbon) for  
example. Testing to make sure your cookbook compiles is great, making  
sure it does what you want, fantastic.

Testing the ways you use the cookbook (or don't use it) is even better.

As an early adopter of Chef, let alone testing my Chef Cookbooks I can  
tell you it's made my life a whole lot easier. It's not a far stretch  
to do write your tests before your cookbook.

P.S. if your worried about pollution or creating cruft, look at your  
tests as examples of how to use your LWRP.

Scott

On 5/1/13 10:30 AM, Bryan Stenson wrote:

> Thanks John.
> 
> As described, I'm hoping to NOT have any testing recipes exist to be  
> assigned to a node's run\_list. The purist in me rejects the idea that  
> I have to have a recipe ("\_test.rb", in your example) just to test my  
> LWRPs.
> 
> Having said that, I'm open to suggestions. Maybe my resistance to an  
> "only used for testing recipe" is misguided or uninformed. If so, I'd  
> like to hear why.
> 
> Bryan
> 
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:54 AM, John Dewey \<john@dewey.ws  
> [mailto:john@dewey.ws](mailto:john@dewey.ws)\> wrote:
> 
> ```
> You test it like anything else. A trivial example:
> https://github.com/retr0h/cookbook-parted/blob/master/spec/_test_spec.rb
> 
> John
> 
> On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 09:49:49AM -0700, Bryan Stenson wrote:
> > An empty default recipe, I suppose, I understand.
> > But, I think ":step_into => ['foo']" only ALLOWS the
> ChefRunner to
> > descend into the "foo" provider...it doesn't actually
> exercise it (how
> > would it know the parameters to test?!)
> > At this point, I think I'm planning on copying the entire
> cookbook into
> > a "temp" directory, applying "fixture recipes" to the copy, and
> > pointing the ChefRunner to that directory as the :cookbook_path
> > This will allow me to write "fixture recipes" for testing,
> and leave
> > them out of the actual recipe folder (so they're unable to be
> used in a
> > run_list).
> > If/when I get something worthy of sharing, I will.
> > Bryan
> >
> > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Mike <[1]miketheman@gmail.com
> <mailto:miketheman@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > John is right - it's becoming common to provide an empty
> default.rb
> > for a cookbook that doesn't have any recipes.
> >
> > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:34 PM, John Dewey <[2]john@dewey.ws
> <mailto:john@dewey.ws>> wrote:
> > >
> > > I believe you can simply create an empty default.rb,
> > > and "step into" the LWRP you wish to test.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 10:12:18PM +0545, millisami r wrote:
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> I m too kinda similar situation.
> > >> On Wednesday, May 1, 2013, Bryan Stenson wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Ohai!
> > >> Following the cookbook pattern described in the
> "Berkshelf Way",
> > I'm
> > >> trying to create a library cookbook which contains some
> custom
> > LWRPs.
> > >> This library cookbook will not have any meaningful
> recipe on its
> > >> own...it will only supply providers and resources to be
> consumed
> > by
> > >> application cookbooks.
> > >> I'd like to test the library cookbook separately, and I
> think
> > ChefSpec
> > >> is the correct approach for unit testing. I see that
> ChefSpec
> > takes a
> > >> recipe list when "converging", but, since my library
> cookbook
> > won't
> > >> have recipes, I don't have one to give to ChefRunner.
> > >> I suppose I'd like some suggestions/experiences on how
> to do
> > this.
> > >> From my perspective, I can see at least two ways to
> solve it
> > (with a
> > >> STRONG preference on the latter):
> > >> 1. Create a "lwrp_testing.rb" recipe which will
> specifically call
> > out
> > >> to each LWRP the library cookbook provides. I don't
> like this
> > cause
> > >> then I've got a testing recipe floating around which
> COULD be
> > applied
> > >> to a node in production - and that's just silly. I
> could prefix
> > this
> > >> recipe with a "_" (as in, "_lwrp_testing.rb"), but
> again, it
> > feels like
> > >> a hack.
> > >> 2. Create a recipe fixture for testing the LWRP for use
> only
> > during
> > >> ChefSpec runs. The recipe would only exist in the
> context of a
> > >> ChefSpec run, and allow for valid exercise of the
> underlying
> > LWRPs
> > >> during testing...at the same time, the recipe would not
> exist
> > "for
> > >> reals" in the cookbook, and couldn't be assigned to a
> run_list.
> > This
> > >> seems like an elegant approach (design wise), but my
> Ruby skills
> > are
> > >> not to the level they should be to easily implement this.
> > Anybody else
> > >> try this?
> > >> Or, perhaps there's another solution I'm overlooking?
> > >> Thanks for your thoughts.
> > >> Bryan
> > >> PS - Thanks to everybody for another great ChefConf!
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> @millisami
> > >> ~Sachin Sagar Rai
> > >> Ruby on Rails Developer
> > >> [1][3]http://tfm.com.np
> > >> [2][4]http://nepalonrails.com
> > >>
> > >> References
> > >>
> > >> 1. [5]http://tfm.com.np/
> > >> 2. [6]http://nepalonrails.com/
> >
> > References
> >
> > 1. mailto:miketheman@gmail.com <mailto:miketheman@gmail.com>
> > 2. mailto:john@dewey.ws <mailto:john@dewey.ws>
> > 3. http://tfm.com.np/
> > 4. http://nepalonrails.com/
> > 5. http://tfm.com.np/
> > 6. http://nepalonrails.com/
> 
> ```
> 
> !DSPAM:51815157182592060713880!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bryan\_Stenson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.chef.io/bryan_stenson/32/420_2.png) [@Bryan\_Stenson](https://discourse.chef.io/u/Bryan_Stenson)\
**Post date:** [May 2, 2013, 3:00pm UTC](https://discourse.chef.io/t/chefspec-for-lwrps-without-recipes/4005/12 "2013-05-02T15:00:22Z")

</div>

I think I’ve not been clear on what I’m advocating, or why I’m confused.

I’m 100% behind testing cookbooks and LWRPs. Clearly, it’s the  
distinguishing factor between “hacking” and professionalism. I’m even 100%  
behind including the tests with the cookbook (in the spec/testing/etc  
folders in the root of the cookbook).

What I’m arguing against is the need for creating a "\_test\_myLWRP.rb"  
recipe in the “/cookbooks/mylibrarycookbook/recipes/” folder.

If a recipe is in that folder, it should be suitable for use by any other  
cookbook/role/run\_list. A “\_test\_myLWRP.rb” recipe would ONLY be useful  
for testing “myLWRP.rb” in  
"/cookbooks/mylibrarycookbook/{resource|provider}" directories, and  
SHOULDN’T be in the general “/cookbooks/mylibrarycookbook/recipes” folder.

It’s the equivalent of putting a RSpec file in your RoR lib directory, or  
including JUnit test class in your java classpath during normal execution.

My conclusion? Chefspec needs a way to test LWRPs without the creating a  
"real" recipe (similar to what rspec-chef does - thanks Zac!)

I’m suggesting a mechanism which allows Chefspec to inject “fixture  
recipes” into “/cookbooks/mylibrarycookbook/recipes” dynamically, before  
handing execution to ChefRunner. One possibly layout might be:

/cookbooks  
/mylibrarycookbook  
/recipes  
(empty - or perhaps an empty default.rb recipe)  
/providers  
myLWRP.rb  
/resources  
myLWRP.rb  
/spec  
default\_spec.rb  
/fixtures  
/recipes  
testing\_myLWRP.rb

“testing\_myLWRP.rb” would be copied into the "/mylibrarycookbook/recipes"  
for the purpose of the Chefspec run, but wouldn’t be there for general LWRP  
consumption.

Anyway, I think this is a pretty fundamental need, and I haven’t found a  
great way to do it yet. Perhaps I’ll file feature request and dabble until  
I’ve got something worth of a pull request.

Bryan