On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:52 AM, Matt Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 25 Nov 2008, at 02:23, Andrew Premdas wrote: > >> You definitely should have an id for your output. One of the really >> good things about feature testing is that it helps you identify what >> needs to be seen in your output, and by that I don't mean specific >> text, but rather a semantic meaning of your output, in this case a >> project containing a token. You should be using css id's and/or >> classes to identify these things. >> >> This will help you write less brittle features that don't depend on >> the content of something, or even worse the label describing it. > > +1 > > The person I often sit down to pair with on features is our CSS / markup > hacker. You can write really nice features if you work to make them > meaningful within the context of the markup (and make the markup meaningful > within the context of the feature). > > As well as #assert_select, check out the #within method that webrat gives > you - you can use it to scope queries against the DOM of the response down > to part of the page. > > Also I'd suggest looking at using Hpricot for validating the response - it's > used internally by webrat and is a really nice API for walking the HTML > produced by the response.
Actually Webrat now uses nokogiri and ships with two very powerful matchers: have_xpath and have_selector that might eliminate your need to open up hpricot or nokogiri directly in the steps. http://github.com/brynary/webrat/tree/master Cheers, David > > cheers, > Matt > _______________________________________________ > 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
