[rspec-users] should_redirect_to in advance - feels unnatural
dchelimsky at gmail.com
Tue Nov 7 15:52:02 EST 2006
On 11/7/06, Jay Levitt <lists-rspec at shopwatch.org> wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
> > On 11/7/06, Jay Levitt <lists-rspec at shopwatch.org> wrote:
> >> I can understand that it's easier for rspec to set up a mock in advance
> >> of the controller call.
> > This was a philosophical choice, not a cop-out to make it easier to
> > implement. That sounds more defensive than it is meant to be. I just
> > want to assure you that our goal is to create the right API.
> No, I completely understand...
> >> But it makes it difficult to do something like:
> >> context "The HarkController, given Louie the logged-in user" do
> >> setup do
> >> post :login, :username => 'louie', :password => 'atest'
> >> end
> > The BDD way, at least as I see it, is rooted in the TDD way:
> > 1. setup objects in a known starting state (setup - perhaps stubs)
> > 2. set expectations of how the object should react to an action (mocks)
> > 3. perform the action
> > 4. verify that the object reacted as expected (verify mocks plus
> > additional assert-like expectations)
> I think the problem I'm having (and that David Lee is having as well) is
> that sometimes I'd like setup to involve an action. It seems the answer
> may be that "the BDD way, at the controller-spec level, is to stub the
> initial action so you've got a known state." I guess I've been writing
> semi-integration specs in that regard.
I can see this if you need one action to get you to a state and
another to set expectations about. I wonder if we can get the state
correct a different way - like setting the user in the session.
The problem becomes when the login breaks for some reason, under some
conditions, and other specs fail because you're using the login action
everywhere. Make sense?
> > The problem there is that it doesn't feel DRY. That's a problem I'm
> > interested in solving, but I'd prefer to do it in a way that helps to
> > express the behaviour-driven nature of BDD. What that means yet I'm
> > not sure. I have a couple of ideas that I'll share as they become
> > slightly more fully baked. I'd love to hear yours in the mean time.
> I don't suppose "It worked in 0.6.4!" counts as an idea?
The original plugin was a great solution to the wrong problem. It was
a way to get rails coverage in rspec as a test/unit substitute w/ sexy
should_be_this_and_that syntax. Everyone (including me) was excited to
be able to do SOMETHING vis a vis rails. It was not, however,
considered very deeply in the context of a BDD framework.
Until we get to 1.0, I think we all just need to live w/ some changes
to the API. I'm confident that what is in place now will not change
significantly, and that we'll mostly be adding to it and not changing
what's there. That said, I feel, and I think I speak for the rest of
the committers, that it's more important to get the right API than to
be constrained by the hacks that came before. If we start living
within that constraint, we'll have no choice but to stop adding new
stuff at the rate at which we do.
> Seriously, I suspect that the arrival of integration specs may solve
> this, because it could be argued that I've really been writing
> integration specs if my specs involve two or more controller actions. I
> would intensely dislike the person who argued that, because they'd be
> making me write more thorough controller-level specs and dive into
> mocking, but I'd probably forgive them when this made my code more robust.
> Of course, the problem is that now I don't have the integration-like
> functionality that 0.6.4 had, so while I can create stubs to do the
> right thing at the controller level, I've lost the ability to test "X
> works after logging in".
That's a problem - we'll solve it.
> > What I'm doing for examples like yours above is adding a method for
> > the post and calling it from each of my specify blocks. Still not
> > completely DRY, but it tells the story. And that is much more
> > important to me than the risk of having to change something in more
> > than one place in a spec.
> To me, that's what "setup" was for - but, again, can setup legitimately
> be a controller action? Mmmmmaybe.
Ditto what I was saying before. You could argue that you should be
able to do anything you need to do in the setup to get you there. I'd
agree with that argument. But I'd hate to have dependencies across two
actions in what are supposed to be very granular specs.
> In any case, as I just discovered, putting the login in a method call
> won't work, because rspec no longer likes two controller actions in a
> single spec, period.
We're going to have to solve that for integration specs. When we do,
we'll be able to support it in controller specs too.
> > As for before or after the action, we did add
> > controller.should_have_rendered for after. We could do something
> > similar: controller.should_have_redirected_to. Or we could do what I
> > originally had in there which was that should_render was smart enough
> > to work on either side of the action. Looking at a few specs, I found
> > that to be more confusing and, hence, split into 'before' and 'after'
> > forms.
> > Of these options, what do you like, and what not?
> I would like "should_render" to be smart; I think the past-tense thing
> is confusing. Ditto should_redirect_to. But I don't have very strong
> feelings about that one.
My thinking right now is that we'll support definitely before and
after one way or the other. The question then becomes whether we use
the past tense or not. My inclination is to use it in order to expose
the differences between before and after. I think it will help to
understand failures when you go back to look at a spec you wrote some
Again, thanks for playing. This is the sort of feedback we need more of.
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
More information about the rspec-users