[rspec-users] RSpec 2 view example: render_template
win at wincent.com
Sun Jun 20 11:34:19 EDT 2010
El 20/06/2010, a las 15:09, David Chelimsky escribió:
> On Jun 20, 2010, at 8:06 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 2010, at 8:03 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>> On Jun 20, 2010, at 7:30 AM, Michael Schuerig wrote:
>>>> On http://github.com/rspec/rspec-rails under "View specs" there's an
>>>> describe "events/index.html.erb" do
>>>> it "renders _event partial for each event" do
>>>> assign(:events, [stub_model(Event), stub_model(Event)])
>>>> view.should render_template(:partial => "_event", :count => 2)
>>>> Is this indeed correct? From the outset, it looks wrong because it sets
>>>> an expectation (view.should ...) after the call to render.
>> Yeah - I see that this is confusing. Maybe we should change that to view.should have_rendered("..."). If so, we should also change response.should render_tempate("...") and response.should redirect_to("....") in controller specs.
> I'm also toying with an idea that would allow you to set an expectation before and have it evaluate at the end. Kind of like message expectations from the outside, but the underlying implementation would be different.
Was going to suggest exactly that.
Although the implementation would be different from normal message expectations, I wonder if it could be built on top of them.
> Not sure if it would work, and I'm not sure if it would help (might just make things more confusing). WDYT?
I'm not sure either, but I suspect it would be more consistent with the way we set up our other expectations.
ie. - when we are testing interactions, we usually use message expectations that are set up beforehand
- when we are testing state, we perform some action and then inspect the state (usually expressed using present tense eg. "should be")
The "should have_rendered" (past tense) idea doesn't really fit in, with those two styles either conceptually or grammatically.
More information about the rspec-users