In Rails 5, the team changed controller tests to effectively be integration tests (use URLs instead of actions), don’t test controller instance variables, don’t test what template is rendered, etc. Instead, you should test the contents of the page for specifics that indicate the request completed as expected.
With RSpec (at least with 3.1), controller tests in Rails 5 are still based on the old unit test (Test::Case). So I’m wondering where I should go here?
It should be noted that I’m just "passing through” Rails 5 on my way to Rails 6 (or at least 5.2), as that may affect the answer to my question.
Here are some of the alternatives I can think of:
1) Stay with current software, use the "rails-controller-testing” to restore template and assigns testing, and leave it alone for a future release.
2) Stay with current software, rewrite all of the controller specs as request specs (and abandon the controller specs).
3) Upgrade to a newer version of RSpec that treats controller specs as request specs (does this even exist?) and rework the controller specs to follow the rules of request specs.
version of RSpec that treats controller specs as request specs (does this even exist?)
There are a couple questions that inform this answer, and perhaps deserve to be answered in their own right:
1) When all is said and done, what is the position of the RSpec team regarding controller specs vs. request specs?
2) Since it seems that, for at least awhile, RSpec and Rails were a bit at odds regarding the nature of these tests, what minor versions of RSpec 3 align with (are intended to be used with) which versions of Rails 5?
It seems to me that these are relatively fundamental questions, and most probably have been discussed/debated at great length, so if you can point me to such a discussion that describes the official opinion of the RSpec team (if there is one), that would be great. (I don’t need someone to write all that up again if it already exists! I’ve seen a lot of blogs giving people’s opinoins on controller unit specs vs. request specs vs. feature specs and I don’t really want to touch the request spec vs. feature spec argument here.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rspec" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rspec+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rspec/CAAk5Ok-GjtsSQfyFGreEbLnhC_b53iJg15%2B6YKMiw7_Gm9mT0A%40mail.gmail.com.
In Rails 5, the team changed controller tests to effectively be integration tests (use URLs instead of actions), don’t test controller instance variables, don’t test what template is rendered, etc. Instead, you should test the contents of the page for specifics that indicate the request completed as expected.With RSpec (at least with 3.1), controller tests in Rails 5 are still based on the old unit test (Test::Case). So I’m wondering where I should go here?As far as I remember, they still are even in rspec-rails 4.0.It should be noted that I’m just "passing through” Rails 5 on my way to Rails 6 (or at least 5.2), as that may affect the answer to my question.Here are some of the alternatives I can think of:1) Stay with current software, use the "rails-controller-testing” to restore template and assigns testing, and leave it alone for a future release.2) Stay with current software, rewrite all of the controller specs as request specs (and abandon the controller specs).3) Upgrade to a newer version of RSpec that treats controller specs as request specs (does this even exist?) and rework the controller specs to follow the rules of request specs.Depends on how frequently `assigns` and `assert_template`.As you have a different goal, and `rails-controller-testing` is extracted and pretty well maintained, I guess you have better investment for your time than to rewrite specs that work.version of RSpec that treats controller specs as request specs (does this even exist?)It doesn't to my best knowledge.There are a couple questions that inform this answer, and perhaps deserve to be answered in their own right:1) When all is said and done, what is the position of the RSpec team regarding controller specs vs. request specs?Controller specs are sometimes used as requests specs, and this lets you easily shot you in your foot. I've just recently seen several `get` calls in a single example, and memoization in the controller that remained between those requests.Rails core team worked hard to make request specs fast. I don't see any reason not to use them.2) Since it seems that, for at least awhile, RSpec and Rails were a bit at odds regarding the nature of these tests, what minor versions of RSpec 3 align with (are intended to be used with) which versions of Rails 5?`rspec-rails` 4.x supports Rails 5 (and even 4.2).There was a more reliable table than that in `rspec-rails` source somewhere, but just by checking README.md of different maintenance branches of `rspec-rails` 3.x`rspec-rails` 3.0-3.5 Rails 3&4`rspec-rails` 3.5-3.9 Rails 3&4&5
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rspec" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rspec+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rspec/dejalu-217-3700ca81-2903-4a43-aa70-87b831d42325%40jonrowe.co.uk.
If it’s that black-and-white that Request specs are to be preferred over Controller Specs, you should consider reflecting that in the documentation on RSpec Controller Specs. Right now, Controller Specs are documented very much the way they would have been before this debate appeared (and certainly before the moves were made by Rails to move away from controller tests). In fact, two of the four examples in the introduction to Controller Specs are about rendered templates and controller instance variables. (BTW, the Request Spec overview also mentions #render_template.)
What I have done with Controller Specs is to focus on making sure that I test every piece of code that is in the Controller to ensure that they do what is expected of them, and the existence of robust controller specs has allowed me to discover and resolve a number of breaking changes
While a request spec will likely find a problem in your program’s behavior (if you’ve figured out enough of the logic to drive all the different paths through the code, which is not trivial when you’re focusing on the big picture of the request),
In Controller tests, I stub out almost everything not in the controller, so that it really is like a controller unit test.
On Dec 6, 2020, at 10:10 AM, Jon Rowe <ma...@jonrowe.co.uk> wrote:If it’s that black-and-white that Request specs are to be preferred over Controller Specs, you should consider reflecting that in the documentation on RSpec Controller Specs. Right now, Controller Specs are documented very much the way they would have been before this debate appeared (and certainly before the moves were made by Rails to move away from controller tests). In fact, two of the four examples in the introduction to Controller Specs are about rendered templates and controller instance variables. (BTW, the Request Spec overview also mentions #render_template.)Thats because the documentation was likely written when controller specs where the only option, and we as a team haven't gotten around to updating them, nor am I likely to any time soon, but I'd happily review contributions on this front.
What I have done with Controller Specs is to focus on making sure that I test every piece of code that is in the Controller to ensure that they do what is expected of them, and the existence of robust controller specs has allowed me to discover and resolve a number of breaking changesAll of which would have been apparent with request specs too.
While a request spec will likely find a problem in your program’s behavior (if you’ve figured out enough of the logic to drive all the different paths through the code, which is not trivial when you’re focusing on the big picture of the request),A controller always executes in the context of the request, a controller spec just skips parts of the stack, but not all of the stack, and can actually introduce bugs where you pass in things which are not actually how rack parses them.
In Controller tests, I stub out almost everything not in the controller, so that it really is like a controller unit test.You can also stub out like that in a request spec, however thats not what I mean by "controller specs are integration tests" a controller spec always has part of the rack stack wrapped around it, and you don't er, control, the initialisation of the controller. So it is never a unit test, you are always integrating parts of Rails with your controller.
I actually wrote proper controller unit tests as part of an experimental setup, with an eye to improving controller specs in rspec-rails, however its really difficult and involved a large knowledge of rails setup, thus its far better to give in and accept the truth, that they are integration tests, and treat them as such.
You can still mock out your service layer in that context, (or go down the DI route to allow control of your inner stack) but the Rails part is so coupled to the router and rack stack you simply have to accept it (or, I guess PRs welcome 😂)
Hope that helpsJon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rspec" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rspec+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rspec/f1320e23-d12c-4e47-90ea-d80f6f598077%40www.fastmail.com.