Yury Kotlyarov wrote:
it "should have form with input fields" do
render ...
response.should have_form(users_path) do
with_field_set 'Personal Information' do
with_text_field 'First name', 'user[first_name]'
...
end
end
end
The minor problem with that system is it forces your test to say exactly what
the code says. That's not "driven" development!
If you can forbear to use matchers (shocked gasp!), at my day-job we match
blocks all the time with assert2's new xpath system:
require 'assert2/xpath'
assert_xhtml response
xpath :form, :action => users_path do
xpath :fieldset, ?. => 'Personal Information' do
xpath :input, :type => 'text', :name => 'user[first_name]' and
xpath :input, :type => 'text', :name => 'user[last_name]'
end
end
From there, wrapping the xpath() calls up into kewt with_text_field() macros
would be trivial. They could also absolves the redundant 'user[]' text on the
names, for example.
If any inner xpath() fails, there, the fault diagnostic contains a formatted &
indented copy of the HTML block under inspection. The entire page would not spew
out! Only the <form> or <fieldset> would.
--
Phlip
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
