https://guides.rubyonrails.org/action_controller_overview.html#the-default-500-and-404-templates
> By default, in the production environment the application will render
either a 404 or a 500 error message. In the development environment all
unhandled exceptions are simply raised.
> When running in the production environment, all
ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound errors render the 404 error page. Unless you
need a custom behavior you don't need to handle this.
To me, it makes sense for you to set `show_exceptions` as you see fit for
the test environment, but doing so on `rspec-rails` level might be a
surprising for users that have `expect { response }.to raise_error(...)`
expectations in their specs.
On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 11:23:49 AM UTC+3 [email protected] wrote:
> Hi Byron
>
> Its because rspec-rails is a thin wrapper around rails own test helpers,
> so we do what they do in terms of raising and rendering errors, it would
> be, in our opinion, more confusing for us to have a different default from
> Rails.
>
> Cheers
> Jon
>
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2021, at 2:07 PM, Byron Katz wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On a basic negative test case, we want to ensure that when we PATCH to the
> wrong URL, we get a 404 error. The test looks like this (slightly modified
> to improve clarity):
> it 'fails if using a bad id' do
> patch our_endpoint(bad_id), params: form_params, as: :json
> expect(response).to have_http_status(:not_found)
> end
>
> when we run this, we get an exception, ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound
>
> It is thrown by #find not finding anything:
> def update
> post = Post.find(params[:id])
> post.update(description: params[:description])
> end
>
> My question is: if we're doing RSPec testing, shouldn't the default
> configuration be to return a 404 HTTP response instead of a Ruby exception?
> Is my understanding of the paradigm broken? All the examples showing RSpec
> testing API's work fine - return an HTTP response - for a success (200
> response), but if it fails, it throws an exception (and doesn't return an
> HTTP response)
>
> By the way, I know how to correct this: as a workaround, we change the
> configuration in config > environments > test.rb as follows:
> # Raise exceptions instead of rendering exception templates.
> config.action_dispatch.show_exceptions = true
>
> or alternately, we can put that setting in the before method of the RSpec
> file, or in the rails_helper.rb under the spec directory, and again it
> works fine, but why wouldn't that be already set as default, given the
> paradigm I'm assuming of how RSpec is meant to work - that is, as much as
> possible with a outward-facing mentality?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Byron
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "rspec" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rspec/e216b303-0061-4e16-bf17-2f36894b77can%40googlegroups.com
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rspec/e216b303-0061-4e16-bf17-2f36894b77can%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"rspec" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rspec/a4880d32-7dba-4e88-a65f-a25a2a8384a8n%40googlegroups.com.
