On Sep 16, 2010, at 1:44 AM, Michael Kintzer wrote: > From: David Chelimsky <[email protected]> > To: rspec-users <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 8:51:48 PM > Subject: Re: [rspec-users] [rails] url_for host and protocol not set when > full spec suite run > > On Sep 15, 2010, at 1:05 PM, Michael Kintzer wrote: > >> rspec (2.0.0.beta.19) >> rails (3.0.0) >> authlogic (2.1.6) >> bartt-ssl_requirement (1.2.3) >> RUBYGEMS VERSION: 1.3.7 >> RUBY VERSION: 1.8.7 (2009-06-12 patchlevel 174) [i686-darwin10.4.0] >> >> Hi, >> >> I'm getting different results when running a Rails 3 scaffold generated >> controller example depending on whether or not I run 'rspec spec' or 'rspec >> spec/controllers'. The difference occurs when evaluating the dynamic route >> methods with for '_url', e.g. my_model_url I'm using Authlogic and >> SslRequirement as well. The issue may be in either of those libraries, but >> the only difference is how I run the spec suite. I disable the Ssl >> requirement check in the test.rb environment file. >> >> Assume I generated the scaffold code with: "rails g scaffold scaffold" to >> create a "Scaffold" model. >> >> See relevant code here: http://gist.github.com/581130 >> >> When I run 'rspec spec/controllers', the example in question passes. I >> placed debug code in url_for.rb (bartt-ssl_requirement-1.2.3) to parse the >> options passed to url_for and they include the :host and :protocol >> parameters, :host => "test.host", :protocol => "http://";. >> >> When I run 'rspec spec', the example in question fails. The url_for >> options are missing both the :host and :protocol parameters. If I manully >> pass those into the my_model_url method, the example will pass. If I use >> the _path version of the route method, the example passes. >> >> The stack trace in the failing case is (path to gems directory omitted): >> 1) ScaffoldsController POST create with valid params redirects to the >> created scaffold >> Failure/Error: response.should redirect_to(scaffold_url(mock_scaffold)) >> Missing host to link to! Please provide :host parameter or set >> default_url_options[:host] >> # .../actionpack-3.0.0/lib/action_dispatch/routing/route_set.rb:473:in >> `url_for_without_non_ssl_host' >> # .../bartt-ssl_requirement-1.2.3/lib/url_for.rb:44:in >> `url_for_without_secure_option' >> # .../gems/bartt-ssl_requirement-1.2.3/lib/url_for.rb:32:in `url_for' >> # .../actionpack-3.0.0/lib/action_dispatch/routing/url_for.rb:132:in >> `url_for' >> # .../actionpack-3.0.0/lib/action_dispatch/routing/route_set.rb:195:in >> `factor_library_url' >> # ./spec/controllers/scaffolds_controller_spec.rb:70 >> # .../activesupport-3.0.0/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:239:in >> `inject' >> >> So, I'm stumped as to why 'rspec spec' is behaving differently from 'rspec >> spec/controllers' with respect to generating the appropriate url_for options. > > > This sort of problem usually boils down to something interacting with global > state - something that is only getting loaded when you run the full suite. To > narrow it down, try running subsets of the directories: > > rspec spec/controllers spec/requests > rspec spec/controllers spec/views > rspec spec/controllers spec/models > > etc > > HTH, > David > > ----- > David, thanks for the suggestion. One of my model specs was including > Rails.application.routes.url_helpers, so it could evaluate route paths (b/c > one of my models is doing the same, unusual, but supported). Removing the > include fixed the controller spec problem mentioned previously. Of course > this broke the model spec that needed url_helpers, but I was able to work > around it by hard-coding what the expected route should be. > > Any idea why including url_helpers in the model spec causes this particular > issue? It would be nice if there wasn't a conflict. I haven't traced > through it enough to understand why the conflict occurs.
Rails.application.routes.url_helpers is a global object, so if the spec is doing anything to change its state that might cause trouble. That's all I can think of. How are you including them?
_______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
