[rspec-users] params are making my "should redirect_to" test fail - why??
toastkid.williams at gmail.com
Thu Feb 14 10:16:09 EST 2008
I'm new to rspec (and coding in general) but would it break a lot of
people's tests if redirect_to was changed to do this by default? It's what
i expected it to do, personally, that is to pass if the given :action and
:controller match up. If i pass a url string, and it's missing the params,
then it seems fair that it should fail, but if for example i just specify a
controller, and that controller is called (with any action) i'd expect it to
pass as well.
Like i say i'm a newb with no idea of the impact of this to existing tests
On 14/02/2008, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/14/08, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale at gmail.com>
> > > On 2/14/08, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Rick DeNatale <
> rick.denatale at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I don't have the cycles to add this anytime soon, so if you like
> > > > idea, feel free to submit a patch to the tracker.
> > >
> > > I'd be happy to do that, although I'm not entirely convinced that
> > > redirect_with is the right name, not that I've got a better
> > > alternative.
> > redirect_with_options?
> I think I like that.
> > How about something added to the existing call?
> > response.should redirect_to(:controller => 'foo', :action =>
> > 'bar').ignoring_other_options
> This seems too wordy.
> Rick DeNatale
> My blog on Ruby
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rspec-users