[rspec-users] RSpec Routing DSL
Joe Fiorini
during Rails Rumble. I was so exhausted that I found writing route
specs a very painful task. I came up with my own routing DSL and I'd
love to see it get included in RSpec itself. Before I start adding the
code to rspec-rails, I'd like to get some feedback and see if there
are some ways we could clean it up. Basically the DSL looks like:
describe "My routes" do
get "/blog" => { controller: "blogs-controller", action: "index" }
end
You can see all the details and the module used to make it work here:
http://gist.github.com/630176. Thoughts?
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec...@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
David Chelimsky
> I started testing routes for the first time in Rails 3 this weekend
> during Rails Rumble. I was so exhausted that I found writing route
> specs a very painful task. I came up with my own routing DSL and I'd
> love to see it get included in RSpec itself. Before I start adding the
> code to rspec-rails, I'd like to get some feedback and see if there
> are some ways we could clean it up. Basically the DSL looks like:
>
> describe "My routes" do
>
> get "/blog" => { controller: "blogs-controller", action: "index" }
>
> end
>
> You can see all the details and the module used to make it work here:
> http://gist.github.com/630176. Thoughts?
Hey Joe - I think this is really nice, but it's unlike any other matchers/macros that ship with RSpec, so I don't feel it belongs in RSpec as it stands today. If future versions move in a direction that better aligns with this we can revisit.
That said, I think it's a nice clean DSL and recommend that you publish it as a gem and share it with those who wish to use it.
In terms of improving it, the only thing I see missing is a way of specifying a route that is not supported. Maybe something like:
get "/blog" => unroutable
WDYT?
Wincent Colaiuta
> I started testing routes for the first time in Rails 3 this weekend
> during Rails Rumble. I was so exhausted that I found writing route
> specs a very painful task. I came up with my own routing DSL and I'd
> love to see it get included in RSpec itself. Before I start adding the
> code to rspec-rails, I'd like to get some feedback and see if there
> are some ways we could clean it up. Basically the DSL looks like:
>
> describe "My routes" do
>
> get "/blog" => { controller: "blogs-controller", action: "index" }
>
> end
>
> You can see all the details and the module used to make it work here:
> http://gist.github.com/630176. Thoughts?
I felt the same pain a while back and proposed a DSL too, but it never really got anywhere as there was no consensus about what a new DSL should look like. Full thread here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rspec/browse_thread/thread/50b46ca3e4bd3a78/da928456061063c6
I never got as far as submitting a patch because I didn't really like the alternative proposals so wasn't going to code them up (I'd already posted my own working proposal).
After several iterations, the implementation that I am currently using consists of "map_to", "map_from", "have_routing" (ie. map both ways) and "be_recognized" matchers; these were chosen largely because they don't clash with the existing matchers in RSpec and so I can use them on an "opt-in" basis:
Some sample specs:
<tangent>
One thing to note is how there are two assertions in there where I use "map_to" instead of "have_routing" because of what looks to be a bug in the Rails routing assertion macros. I think there is a Lighthouse ticket for this but the only ones related to "assert_generates" which I can find right now are:
https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/5260
https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/5005
https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/5689
At least one of those issues (#5260, #5005) is supposedly resolved in 3.0.2. #5698 was marked as invalid. Tangentially related is this old ticket which I posted:
https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/907
I thought someone posted a pretty good analysis of exactly what the breakage is and why it happens, but I can't find it. :-( Guess when I get time will have to do some analysis of the Rails codebase and figure out what's happening and put together another ticket.
While Googling, found this, however, describing changes in 2.0.0:
http://github.com/rspec/rspec-rails/issues/221
Which notes that RSpec's "route_to" now delegates to "assert_recognizes" (a one-way assertion) rather than "assert_routing" (a two-way assertion).
</tangent>
Cheers,
Wincent
David Chelimsky
The problem with the bi-directional expectation was that you can have two routes that map to the same path:
resources :widgets
root :to => "widgets#index"
In this case, both of these are true if all we expect is the route recognition:
{ :get => "/" }.should route_to(:controller => "widgets", :action => "index")
{ :get => "/widgets/index" }.should route_to(:controller => "widgets", :action => "index")
However, route generation would not generate "/" from (:controller => "widgets", :action => "index"). Assuming a bi-directional mapping for every case was wrong, so I changed it to uni-directional (route recognition).
The other 1/2 of the motivation for this change was that route generation is something that is well specified and tested in Rails itself. In our apps, our specs should spec things like "generates a link to the widget," not "builds a link using the widget." So I don't see much value in expectations about generation, and I certainly don't see them as a routing concern any longer. They may be so within the rails framework, but they are unrelated to what I'm specifying when I specify routes. Make sense?
So for me, all we need is uni-directional expectations for routes we want to exist and routes we want to not exist, hence:
{ :get => "/" }.should route_to(:controller => "foo", :action => "bar")
{ :get => "/private_stuff" }.should_not be_routable
I would definitely be open to adding conveniences to clean this up:
get("/").should route_to("foo#bar")
get("/private_stuff").should_not be_routable
Then Joe's DSL could exploit those and we'd get:
get "/blog" => "blogs-controller#index"
Still not sure about the negative (unroutable).
Cheers,
David
Joe Fiorini
made that I wonder if we could see in core are:
1) printing out the path and method in specdoc output
2) setting default scope options per context (not quite working in my
example yet)
Thoughts?
Wincent: I like what you've come up with. Much more rspecish than
mine. Doesn't seem too different from what's in rspec-rails 2.0.
On Oct 19, 3:05 am, Wincent Colaiuta <w...@wincent.com> wrote:
> El 18/10/2010, a las 20:20, Joe Fiorini escribió:
>
> > I started testing routes for the first time in Rails 3 this weekend
> > during Rails Rumble. I was so exhausted that I found writing route
> > specs a very painful task. I came up with my own routing DSL and I'd
> > love to see it get included in RSpec itself. Before I start adding the
> > code to rspec-rails, I'd like to get some feedback and see if there
> > are some ways we could clean it up. Basically the DSL looks like:
>
> > describe "My routes" do
>
> > get "/blog" => { controller: "blogs-controller", action: "index" }
>
> > end
>
> > You can see all the details and the module used to make it work here:
> >http://gist.github.com/630176. Thoughts?
>
> I felt the same pain a while back and proposed a DSL too, but it never really got anywhere as there was no consensus about what a new DSL should look like. Full thread here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rspec/browse_thread/thread/50b46ca3e4b...
>
> I never got as far as submitting a patch because I didn't really like the alternative proposals so wasn't going to code them up (I'd already posted my own working proposal).
>
> After several iterations, the implementation that I am currently using consists of "map_to", "map_from", "have_routing" (ie. map both ways) and "be_recognized" matchers; these were chosen largely because they don't clash with the existing matchers in RSpec and so I can use them on an "opt-in" basis:
>
> http://gist.github.com/633716
>
> Some sample specs:
>
> http://gist.github.com/633723
>
> <tangent>
>
> One thing to note is how there are two assertions in there where I use "map_to" instead of "have_routing" because of what looks to be a bug in the Rails routing assertion macros. I think there is a Lighthouse ticket for this but the only ones related to "assert_generates" which I can find right now are:
>
> https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/5260
> https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/5005
> https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/5689
>
> At least one of those issues (#5260, #5005) is supposedly resolved in 3.0.2. #5698 was marked as invalid. Tangentially related is this old ticket which I posted:
>
> https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/907
>
> I thought someone posted a pretty good analysis of exactly what the breakage is and why it happens, but I can't find it. :-( Guess when I get time will have to do some analysis of the Rails codebase and figure out what's happening and put together another ticket.
>
> While Googling, found this, however, describing changes in 2.0.0:
>
> http://github.com/rspec/rspec-rails/issues/221
>
> Which notes that RSpec's "route_to" now delegates to "assert_recognizes" (a one-way assertion) rather than "assert_routing" (a two-way assertion).
>
> </tangent>
>
> Cheers,
> Wincent
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us...@rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users