[rspec-devel] [cucumber] lib/cucumber/rails/world.rb redefining ActionController::Base#rescue_action
zach.dennis at gmail.com
Tue Mar 24 19:04:39 EDT 2009
2009/3/24 aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Matt Patterson
> <matt-lists at reprocessed.org> wrote:
>> I've got a question about the redefinition of
>> ActionController::Base#rescue_action. Mainly, why? From the comment in the
>> source it looks there was a pain point that this solved, but I can't figure
>> out what that might be.
>> My problem is this: I make heavy use of rescue_from to trap exceptional
>> cases so I can 404, 401 or 500 as appropriate. I've got a Scenario which
>> looks like this ('deleted' blog posts in this app aren't erased from the DB,
>> they're marked deleted for auditing):
>> Scenario: Attempting to visit a deleted blog post
>> Given there is a blog post entitled "Look Ma no hands"
>> And the blog post "Look Ma no hands" has been marked as deleted
>> When I attempt to visit the Blog post page for "Look Ma no hands"
>> Then the response should be a 404 error
>> That looks like a perfectly reasonable scenario to me, except that it
>> blows up at "When I attempt to visit". The source for that step is:
>> When /^I attempt to visit the Blog post page for "(.+)"$/ do |title|
>> visit entry_path(Entry.find_by_url_slug!(Digest::MD5.hexdigest(title)))
>> [Excuse the MD5 - it's just a way of maintaining readability in the
>> scenarios without resorting to fixtures (I'm undecided about it as an
>> approach, btw)]
>> visit is exploding when my controller raises a FourOhFour error because a
>> non-staff non-logged-in user shouldn't be able to see the page. I use
>> rescue_from to render a special 404 template, but that's never reached
>> because of the redefinition of rescue_action.
>> This seems really counterintuitive to me: I expect that the integration
>> tests will use the full stack, and even in my isolated controller specs I
>> have to explicitly request that the normal rescue_action is bypassed. If
>> there's a genuine pain point here that re-raising and not handling the
>> exception solves then I'm sure I can find a different idiom for these kinds
>> of scenarios, but I've spent 4 hours today trying to figure out what was
>> broken: first in my app code then breaking out rdebug to find out what was
>> really happening, which suggests to me that it's a non-obvious and confusing
>> Anyway, sorry to sound so whingey. Like I said: if there's a genuine
>> problem this approach solves, I'll find a new idiom and shut up. Otherwise,
>> can this be changed?
I usually comment those things out in rails/world.rb in cucumber.
> I understand your situation - it's perfectly valid. Still, I think you are
> the first person to bring this up.
Nope, he's not:
> The vast majority of Cucumber users/Rails
> developers don't rely on this kind of error handling, so raising errors
> seems to be a sensible default.
I'm not the vast, but I rely on, and I know several other Rails devs
who rely on it to. Although, we may still be the minority.
> There is currently no way to turn off that default. Can you provide a patch
> (or a suggestion) that will let users optionally turn off the current
A discussion was originally brought up here:
I apologize for not being proactive on my end, so far taking out the
offending lines on rails/world.rb has worked fine.
>> Matt Patterson | Design & Code
>> <matt at reprocessed org> | http://www.reprocessed.org/
>> rspec-devel mailing list
>> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> rspec-devel mailing list
> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
More information about the rspec-devel