On 8/15/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/15/07, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/14/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 8/14/07, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 8/14/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 8/14/07, Zach Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > There is a warning on the web site about expect_render and > > > > > > stub_render: > > > > > > > > > > > > "WARNING: expect_render and stub_render, while very useful, act > > > > > > differently from standard Message Expectations (a.k.a. mock > > > > > > expectations), which would never pass calls through to the real > > > > > > object. This can be very confusing when there are failures if you're > > > > > > not aware of this fact, because some calls will be passed through > > > > > > while others will not. This is especially confusing when you use > > > > > > stub_render because, as with all Method Stubs, you will get very > > > > > > little feedback about what is going on." > > > > > > > > > > > > My questions: > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this a sign that expect_render is doing to much? > > > > > > Is there a benefit from having expect_render and stub_render > > > > > > sometimes > > > > > > pass the render call to the underlying template object? > > > > > > Why not force all partials to be tested individually? > > > > > > > > > > > > Testing partials individually seems like a cleaner, more consistent > > > > > > and less confusing route to go, especially when you consider the > > > > > > nesting of paritals which render other partials. > > > > > > > > > > That's the whole reason for the existence of expect_render. If you're > > > > > spec'ing '_outer_partial' and you want to specify that it renders > > > > > '_inner_partial', but you don't want to actually render > > > > > '_inner_partial', there is no way to do that with traditional mocking > > > > > frameworks because they are not designed to pay attention to one call > > > > > to a method: > > > > > > > > > > render(:partial => '_inner_partial') > > > > > > > > > > while letting another call to the same method: > > > > > > > > > > render(:partial => '_outer_partial') > > > > > > > > > > through to the object. Agreed that expect_partial is doing to much, > > > > > but what alternatives do we have? > > > > > > > > When testing views the first call to render is going to be the one > > > > that should be passed to the underlying template, since this is from > > > > the test. > > > > > > > > Every subsequent call to render will be done from within the template, > > > > so RSpec can look for a matching expectation. It seems that > > > > expect_render is in charge of setting those up. > > > > > > > > If this is done then a simple convention will be enforced, every > > > > inline "render :partial" call will have to be expected in a view spec, > > > > and every view template (or partial) will have to have it's own view > > > > test. > > > > > > > > This gets rid of issues of nesting, confusion and poorly written specs > > > > where someone is asserting contents of a partial rendered multiple > > > > levels deep in the render chain. > > > > > > > > Granted you end up with more view tests, but they are cleaner, shorter > > > > and easier to read. More importantly they are easier to maintain and > > > > update because they will be easy to find an existing spec for to start > > > > test driving changes, rather then having to find the view which > > > > renders your partial and the spec that renders that view (and heaven > > > > forbid your partial is used in several views, and each view tests the > > > > contents of that partial). > > > > > > I think you are describing a good convention, but I don't think rspec > > > should force it on everybody. The goal here is to provide tools that > > > ALLOW you to do things in certain ways but not force you to. > > > > > > For example, rspec_on_rails supports isolated views, but you can do > > > rails-style functional tests (using controller specs with integrated > > > views) if you want. > > > > How about a "integrate_inline_renders" similar to "integrate_views"? > > Just don't use expect_render and it'll do that. Magic! >
I'm on the opposite view point. I don't want to pass through renders, I want to force all inline renders to be enforced. If i have a view that calls "render :partial => 'foo'" and I don't use expect_render I want it to yell at me saying an unexpected call was made on the template. Zach _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
