Tim Haines wrote: > Hi David, > > You were spot on. The generated authenticated_system_spec included > AuthenticatedSystem. If I include AuthenticatedSystem into the > SessionsController spec, then the specs all pass. This is a problem > with the standard specs that resful_authentication builds for you - so > I'll looking at getting those fixed.. > > I'm kind of curios that the specs are testing these protected methods > - I would have expected that's generally not a done thing as they're > not a public part of the API? Yep, you're right. In general specing protected/private methods isn't something you want to do. The only time I have a spec for such a method is a result of a refactoring. Since the goal is to spec the behaviour of an object it makes sense IMO to use black box testing and only spec the public API as you pointed out. Whenever I find myself wanting to spec non-public methods or to stub them I take that as a hint to extract the methods out into other objects and then spec their public interfaces. restful_auth does several things from a testing and design point of view that aren't ideal though.
> > I guess there's 3 options as to how to patch: > 1) include AuthenticatedSystem, or > 2) change the specs to use .send, or > 3) remove the specs that are calling protected methods. If you really want to spec the protected methods or want to keep the existing specs around I would favor using the send method because it keeps you "feeling dirty" everytime you do it. Removing the specs that are calling the protected methods would be better IMO but you could not simply remove them.. they would need to be refactored to be specing the public API while still covering all of the functionality provided in the protected methods. Again, the fact that they have been specing the protected methods is an indication that another object may want to be born to handle the extra responsibility... Just my two cents.. HTH, Ben > > Do you have any guidance on the best path forward here? > > Cheers, > > Tim. > > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:15 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Tim Haines <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > I've noticed something a little odd with the session_controller > specs that > > are generated from the rails plugin restful_authentication. > When they're > > run with all the other app specs (i.e. when I first fire up > autospec) the > > specs all pass. However, if I touch the session_controller_spec > file so > > only the session_controller specs are run, some fail with the > error message > > protected method `logged_in?' called for > #<SessionsController:0x19100e0> > > > > Can anyone explain why this might be or where I should start > digging to try > > and resolve this? > > logged_in? is protected in the module AuthenticatedSystem. Chances are > that you've got a code example that's doing this: > > controller.logged_in? > > instead of this: > > controller.send(:logged_in?) > > and something that's not getting loaded when you run just > sessions_controller_spec is including AuthenticatedSystem into the > example group directly. > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Tim. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rspec-users mailing list > > rspec-users@rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users@rubyforge.org> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org <mailto:rspec-users@rubyforge.org> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
