David, thank you for your reply on this. I really dig the expect { }.to
raise_error() syntax!!
To clarify: All the things you're claiming match my expectation.
Unfortunately, my expectation does not match reality according to my tests.
The thing is, route_for([bad stuff]) does not in and of itself raise a routing
error. It constructs an object that hasn't yet been compared with == to
anything.
23 t = route_for(:controller => "designs", :action => "create")
(rdb:1) puts t
#<Spec::Rails::Example::RoutingHelpers::RouteFor:0x208ca44>
According to my tests, the routing error only occurs after route_for()'s result
gets compared to something. So lambda { route_for(...) } does not raise error.
The following code passes with flying colors, either in lambda or expect {}.to
form:
t = route_for(:controller => "designs", :action => "create")
expect { t == "anything" }.to raise_error( ActionController::RoutingError )
expect { t.should == "anything" }.to raise_error(
ActionController::RoutingError )
Any further ideas?
Randy
----- Original Message ----
> From: David Chelimsky <[email protected]>
> To: rspec-users <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:28:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [rspec-users] Problem verifying routing error
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:07 PM, wrote:
> >
> > I finally figured this out.
> >
> > lambda { route_for(:controller => "designs", :action => "create").should ==
> "anything" }.should raise_error( ActionController::RoutingError )
> >
> > The clue was that I wasn't getting a routing error until I tried to compare
> route_for() with something. route_for() seems to generate an object that
> overrides ==(), and at that time it does raise the exception. Now we wrap
> that
> comparison in a lambda and assert that the *comparison* should raise the
> expected routing error.
> >
> > So - great, we can actually test it. But the syntax does leave something
> > to
> be desired. dchelimsky, can you recommend any alternatives that would be a
> bit
> cleaner for testing that a route doesn't exist?
> >
>
> You don't need the .should == "anything" in there. So this is a bit cleaner:
>
> lambda { route_for(:controller => "designs", :action => "create")
> }.should raise_error( ActionController::RoutingError )
>
> Also, since rspec-1.2.5 you can use expect/to:
>
> expect { route_for(:controller => "designs", :action => "create")
> }.to raise_error( ActionController::RoutingError )
>
> You could always kick it old-school:
>
> e = nil
> begin
> route_for(:controller => "designs", :action => "create")
> rescue ActionController::RoutingError => e
> ensure
> e.should_not be_nil
> end
>
> And you could always wrap this in an new matcher:
>
> def be_routable
> Spec::Matchers.new :be_routable, self do |example|
> match do |params|
> e = nil
> begin
> example.route_for(params)
> rescue ActionController::RoutingError => e
> end
> !!e
> end
> end
> end
>
> {:controller => "designs", :action => "create"}.should_not be_routable
>
> In this case you need to wrap the matcher's construction in a method
> in order to provide access to the scope of the example (which is where
> route_for lives). Also, I just whipped that up off the top of my head
> - no idea if it actually works :)
>
> HTH,
> David
>
>
>
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Randy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Ben Mabey
> >> To: [email protected]; rspec-users
> >> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2009 10:25:03 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [rspec-users] Problem verifying routing error
> >>
> >> Randy Harmon wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > When upgrading to rspec/rspec-rails 1.2.6 gem (from 1.1.12), I'm having
> >> > a new problem verifying routes that should not exist.
> >> >
> >> > This is to support something like this in routes.rb:
> >> >
> >> > map.resources :orders do |orders|
> >> > orders.resources :items, :except => [:index,:show]
> >> > end
> >> >
> >> > I used to use lambda {}.should_raise( routing error ), but it stopped
> >> > detecting any raised error. Requesting it through the browser produces
> >> > ActionController::MethodNotAllowed (Only post requests are allowed). But
> >> > that error wasn't detected.
> >> >
> >> > When I skip the lambda, and just ask it to verify that the route does
> >> > exist (which *should* fail), I get the same result for those :except
> >> > actions as for a made-up action name. Seems this must have something to
> >> > do with the change in how route_for delegates back to ActionController's
> >> > routing assertion (sez the backtrace :).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > NoMethodError in 'ItemsController route generation should NOT map
> >> > #indewfefwex'
> >> > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
> >> > You might have expected an instance of Array.
> >> > The error occurred while evaluating nil.first
> >> >
> >>
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-2.2.2/lib/action_controller/assertions/routing_assertions.rb:134:in
> >> > `recognized_request_for'
> >> >
> >>
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-2.2.2/lib/action_controller/assertions/routing_assertions.rb:49:in
> >> > `assert_recognizes'
> >> >
> >>
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-2.2.2/lib/action_controller/assertions.rb:54:in
> >> > `clean_backtrace'
> >> >
> >>
> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-2.2.2/lib/action_controller/assertions/routing_assertions.rb:47:in
> >> > `assert_recognizes'
> >> > ./spec/controllers/thoughts_routing_spec.rb:9:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I tried using bypass_rescue in my routing/items_routing_spec.rb file as
> >> > mentioned by the upgrade doc, but it wasn't valid in the "routing" spec
> >> > - worked fine when I moved the file back to spec/controllers/, though.
> >> > Seems like that's not the issue, but I'm mentioning for more
> >> > completeness.
> >> >
> >> > Any ideas what I should be doing instead, or how I can troubleshoot
> further?
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Hmm.. yeah, it seems like it might have to do with how the exceptions
> >> are being handled in the newer version of rspec-rials (see
> >>
> https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/85-11818-have-mode-for-rails-error-handling).
> >>
> >> I don't use RSpec to verify my routes very often and have never used it
> >> to verify the non-existence of a route so I'm afraid I don't really have
> >> any ideas...
> >>
> >> Does anyone else have an idea to do this?
> >>
> >> -Ben
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
