GAh! easy one - I was adding the method argument to the 'route_for()' instead of the 'should ==' hash it compares the generated output with. And now I see how the script you made takes the single string argument from the old style and drops it into a hash that includes the restful method name. Thank you for providing the clue I needed to get the correct syntax.
On Mar 2, 4:08 am, Juanma Cervera <[email protected]> wrote: > Trying the next release of rspec, I have had to make changes in the > existing specs for routing. > I have written an script with sed that makes this automatically (two > files) > > spec/upgrade.sed > ================ > /route_for/s/id => 1/id => "1"/g > /route_for.*create/s/== \(["'].*["']\)/== {:path => \1, :method => > :post}/ > /route_for.*update/s/== \(["'].*["']\)/== {:path => \1, :method => > :put}/ > /route_for.*destroy/s/== \(["'].*["']\)/== {:path => \1, :method => > :delete}/ > > and > spec/upgrade > ============ > for f in `find controllers -name "*routing*rb" -type f`; do sed -i -f > upgrade.sed $f; done > > You shoud make this file executable and run it > > I hope this helps somebody. > Juanma > -- > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/. > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > [email protected]http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
